Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, February 7, 2023 (part 5 of 9)

systems to help replenish groundwater resources (Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, 2010; CASQA, 2015). Biofiltration systems are typically designed to allow infiltration in suitable conditions, however the amount of infiltration achieved by these systems may be limited by the footprint area of the biofiltration system and the infiltration rates of near-surface soils.

Excess water is typically discharged through an underdrain into the storm sewer system and not infiltrated. Incorporation of a drywell component provides an opportunity to significantly increase the infiltration capacity of these systems. Drywells are designed to enhance infiltration and are commonly used for runoff management in various landuse settings. Drywells enhance infiltration by penetrating clay and other less permeable soil layers that otherwise limit infiltration at the surface, thus providing the potential for significantly greater stormwater runoff volume reduction and aquifer recharge. The term “injection well” is commonly used to describe both drywells and also mechanically powered injection wells. The engineering details and specifications described herein provide an important reference defining how “enhanced infiltration” configurations differ from injection wells. Most importantly, wells with mechanical injection can include direct injection into an aquifer with no vadose zone treatment, whereas the system described in this memorandum features additional vadose zone treatment. This additional treatment is important for a number of pollutants described below. Current injection well regulations as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency may require users to register and monitor the facilities, which may create a disincentive for use in stormwater management.

Evaluation of dry wells for stormwater management may be warranted to better understand their context regulatory context. Having a clearly defined system is particularly important in the context of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) ongoing efforts to develop a regulatory framework for this type of work (OEHHA, 2015).

Combining biofiltration BMPs with drywells provides a system which helps optimize the multibenefits of stormwater management (i.e. improved water quality and increased local water supply). Well-designed biofiltration systems can also provide pre-treatment for drywells, including providing treatment for suspended solids, particulate-bound pollutants, dissolved metals, pathogens, dissolved organics, and other constituents. Other BMPs such as vegetated swales, sediment basins, and permeable pavement also have potential to provide effective pretreatment in combined BMP/drywell designs. This memorandum however only assesses the opportunities and risks specifically concerning the use of biofiltration systems with a drywell, and specifically within the context of typical pollutant loads found in urban stormwater runoff. It is important to note that other landuses such as heavy industry or agriculture may pose additional risks to groundwater contamination for which this system may not adequately address.

Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 787, Packet Page 887 F-47
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 3 ends

Conversely, in certain watersheds where low pollutant loads have been demonstrated, other BMP types such as vegetated swales may suffice in providing adequate pre-treatment.

Biofiltration alone provides water quality benefits including runoff volume and rate reduction and removal/treatment of common urban pollutants. By combining a biofiltration and dry well design, water resource benefits are optimized. As with any BMP design, the biofiltration/dry well technical details and specifications need to address potential risk. For example, as with any dry well design, care must be taken to limit the amount of sediment that enters the dry well. If media is not adequately retained in the biofilter, particles can wash out of the media and pose a clogging risk to the drywell. Second, removal of nutrients from stormwater is strongly dependent on the properties and sources of biofiltration media, and export of nutrients from media (i.e., negative removal efficiency) is a significant concern if materials are not carefully selected (Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers, 2011; Roseen and Stone, 2013; Herrera, 2014, Herrera et al., 2015a, Herrera et al. 2015b). Finally, export of other pollutants, such as dissolved copper, has also been observed but is less common (Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers, 2014; Roseen and Stone, 2013; Herrera et al. 2015b). Engineering details and specifications can help limit the potential for export of pollutants and associated impacts to drywell maintenance and groundwater quality.

2. PERCEIVED AND ASSESSED RISK OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION FROM INFILTRATING STORMWATER.

While many stormwater BMPs are designed to infiltrate urban stormwater runoff, concerns have been raised as to whether there is an added risk of groundwater quality impact with drywells which provide a more direct conduit to groundwater. Therefore there is a need to provide a standardized BMP design that specifies pre-drywell treatment components to provide a minimum standard pollutant removal for the pollutants that are typically found in urban stormwater runoff. Priority pollutants in urban stormwater runoff generally include nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus), heavy metals (e.g. cadmium, copper, lead and zinc), organics (i.e., petroleum hydrocarbons), pathogens (i.e., fecal coliforms, enterococcus), and suspended solids.

The dissolved and colloidal (or planktonic, in the case of bacteria cells) fraction for each of these priority pollutants represents the greatest threat to groundwater quality given the effectiveness of biofiltration for removing particulate bound pollutants. However, typical dissolved concentrations of most urban stormwater pollutants are below drinking water standards (which are typically applicable to the beneficial use of underlying aquifers). An exception to this is bacteria and pathogens, where biofilter effluent concentrations are not expected to consistently Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 788, Packet Page 888 F-48
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 4 ends

meet drinking water standards, therefore vadose zone treatment is required to further mitigate this water quality issue.

Acknowledgment of the contamination risk to groundwater as a potential barrier to using enhanced stormwater infiltration techniques has prompted a number of studies to investigate contamination risks associated with stormwater infiltration BMPs, including drywells. Over all, studies however have found that treated stormwater infiltrated from BMPs does not pose a significant risk to impairment of groundwater quality and in some cases found to improve the quality of groundwater (Jurgens, 2008; Weiss, 2008, Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, 2010). Studies found that nitrates in drinking water can pose human health risks, and tend to be poorly retained in BMPs due to high solubility (Pitt et al., 1999), however the amount of nitrates typically found in stormwater is less than the drinking water standard (U.S. EPA, 1999), and therefore nitrates are not considered a concern as long as nutrient hot spot areas are avoided (e.g., agriculture, nurseries) and sources of nitrates within biofiltration media are limited and controlled. Metals were found to largely be absorbed by BMPs, however there is a potential for breakthrough if the soil becomes saturated with contaminants, and satisfactory treatment depends on soil replacement at set intervals (i.e. a dedicated maintenance regime); typically maintenance intervals will be controlled by surface clogging of the biofilter rather than pollutant accumulation (Pitt and Clark, 2010). BMPs are known to remove bacteria through straining in the soils (Diez and Clausen, 2005; Rusciano and Obropta, 2007), however the treatment efficiency, and migratory potential for pathogens is highly variable (US EPA, 1999), and contamination of groundwater by pathogens has been documented (Pitt, 1999). However, any groundwater consumption as a potable water source requires treatment, and therefore bacteria contamination from stormwater infiltration is not deemed a threat to human health. Organic pollutants such as hydrocarbons are a concern for groundwater contamination since they are found to typically occur in quantities above regulatory levels (Shepp, 1996), have been shown to migrate into groundwater (Pitt et al, 1999), and can cause acute toxicity (U.S. EPA, 1999). Most hydrocarbons will be attenuated by soil in biofiltration systems (Hsieh and Davis, 2005), however, Wilson et al (1990) found that while undetected in stormwater samples, volatile organic sediments were present in dry-well sediments and groundwater samples, though at levels below the EPA human health criteria. Therefore the expected risk of groundwater contamination from stormwater infiltration is considered to be low for typical stormwater pollutants of concern.

Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 789, Packet Page 889 F-49
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 5 ends

3. OVERVIEW/DESCRIPTION OF THE ENGINEERING DETAILS
The following section describes the function of each component of design in terms of either addressing the water quality objective, the groundwater augmentation objective, and a “system fail” risk mitigation objective.

3.1 DESIGN ELEMENTS TO HELP PROTECT GROUNDWATER RESOURCES (BMP) The biofiltration system consists of “soft infrastructure” and “hard infrastructure” components.

The soft infrastructure includes vegetation within a filter media (e.g., bioretention soil media), and storage media (e.g., aggregate). The hard infrastructure includes an underdrain to discharge treated water to the drywell, an overflow control and hard engineered structures defining the boundary between the BMP and adjacent urban infrastructure. Other hard engineered structures such as inlets and curb retrofits relate to the site conditions and catchment hydrology but do not have a significant nexus to how well a BMP performs for protecting groundwater resources. The hard infrastructure elements are governed by local standard specifications and are not detailed in the following discussion.
 Vegetation used in biofiltration systems are typically reed species such as Juncus spp. and Carex spp. These species can tolerate extended wet and dry periods, help maintain porosity of media, provide uptake of nutrients and some other pollutants, and can play a role in symbiotic role with other organisms in media (i.e., microorganisms, fungus) (Read et al 2008). LIDI biofiltration technical specifications (LIDI 2013a) provides further details on irrigation and planting guidelines.
 The media bed supports plant growth, infiltration and provides treatment. The single media layer, often topped with a specified mulch, provides for planting and filtering. In other designs, a separate layer of planting media is placed in the top of the bed and is underlain by filter media which also provides treatment. Where planting media and filter media are the same layer, this layer should adhere to the more stringent of the LIDI technical standards for planting media and filter media. o Filter media, which is placed below the planting media in a layered design, is an engineered filter material known as the biofiltration soil media (BSM). Detailed specifications are contained in the LIDI Biofilter Technical Standards (BTS) (LIDI 2013a). The biofiltration soil media features a ratio of organic and inorganic Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 790, Packet Page 890 F-50
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 6 ends

material which allows suitable infiltration, and also the required chemical, biological and physical pollutant removal processes. The specified combination provides an important filtering function for metals and nutrients. Cation exchange capacity is known to be an important process in metal removal and nutrient retention (Jurries, 2003). Additionally, other treatment processes, such as sorption and precipitation can be provided by the components used in the filter media.
o The abundance and solubility of contaminants in the soil media is a key factor in determining the potential for pollutant export. This can be controlled by utilizing minimum organic material quantities needed for plant survival (typically 5 percent or less), utilizing stable organic materials (a well-aged leaf-based compost or compost alternative such as coco coir pith should be considered), and conducting initial leachate testing on all materials that are used.  The storage layer is the base layer of the biofiltration system and consists of an open graded aggregate to optimize the porosity of this layer. This layer includes the underdrain which drains treated water to the drywell. Since the system objective is to infiltrate treated water through the drywell, optimizing storage volume in this layer is not required.

Therefore this layer only needs to be sized to cover the underdrain and provide the required distance between the drain and BSM as per LIDI specifications. This minimum depth between the drain and BSM has not yet been determined according to the BTS (LIDI 2013a) and warrants further research. A bridging layer of at least 6 inches is preferred.

Alternatively, a well screen pipe with very fine slots can be buried directly within the filter media layer to eliminate the need for a bridging layer and storage rock. Connected to the drain are maintenance and ventilation riser pipes which are proposed in this design. These PVC pipes require a bent connection to the under drain to facilitate directional cleaning.  To achieve lower pollutant concentrations in treated biofilter effluent, an outlet control device attached to the underdrain of the biofiltration system may be desirable to control the rate of flow through the filter media. This has the benefit of increasing the contact time of water in the media pores, reducing the potential for short circuiting, and reducing pore velocities. Most critically, if pore velocities are high through the media or preferential pathways form, export of fine particles from the soil media can result. The conventional way to control filtration rates is to limit the hydraulic conductivity of the media. However, this approach can be challenging to execute reliably in practice given Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 791, Packet Page 891 F-51
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 7 ends

sensitivity of media filtration rate to minor variations in particle size distribution and compaction - a high level of quality control is needed to “dial in” media filtration rates in this manner. This also results in a media that is closer to clogging failure at the time it is place. The preferred outlet control approach allows the media to be specified with a higher initial hydraulic conductivity and wider allowable range that is easier to specify and achieve. The actual rate of flow through the media is then controlled by a more precise hydraulic control structure (i.e., orifice or weir) affixed to the underdrain or outlet pipe rather than the surface of the soil media. This approach can also allow the water level retained in the biofiltration system to be adjusted; for example it may be desirable to pool water within the underdrain or filter media layer of the biofiltration system to improve residence time for small storms and provide a reservoir of water for plant roots.

3.2 DESIGN ELEMENTS TO ENHANCE INFILTRATION OF STORMWATER AND TO LIMIT

ADVERSE IMPACTS AND SYSTEM FAILURE
The drywell is a relatively straightforward design and a system commonly used in stormwater management. The drywell typically consists of a gravel and stone backfilled slotted well which accepts treated stormwater for infiltration is drilled to at least 10 feet below any impermeable layers. A number of important design guidelines, design changes, and maintenance routines should be followed to enhance groundwater infiltration function.

Design Guidelines
These guidelines are based on common standards of the Los Angeles County LID Standards Manual (2014), the San Diego County LID Handbook (2014) and the Orange County Technical Guidance Manual (2013). The most important of these are:
 Maintain a 10 foot minimum separation between drywell bottom and seasonal high water table; in constrained hydrogeologic conditions (i.e., limited groundwater gradient; confining layers or faults), an evaluation of potential groundwater mounding may also be needed;
 Do not use in soils with >30% clay or >40% silt because these soils are not conducive to infiltration.
 Penetrate the drywell at least 10 feet into permeable porous soils; Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 792, Packet Page 892 F-52
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 8 ends

 Conduct facility-specific infiltration testing at the location and depth of the proposed drywell facility, using standardized methods acceptable to the local jurisdiction, to estimate the long term capacity of the drywell;
 Apply appropriate factors of safety to address uncertainty in testing methods, long term operational conditions, and potential for clogging;
 Maintain at least a 100 foot minimum setback from public supply wells and septic systems;
 Maintain a 100 foot minimum separation between drywells unless the interdependency of multiple wells in close proximity has been evaluated to determine the reliable long term drywell capacity (the groundwater dispersion mounds from multiple drywells in close proximity may interact and reduce the rate of each well, if placed in close proximity);  Maintain at least 250 foot setback from sites of potential soil or groundwater contamination (such as sites found in the Geotracker or EviroStor databases (http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/; http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/), unless a site specific study demonstrates that infiltration would not adversely impact groundwater conditions. Higher setbacks may be necessary depending on the direction of flow of groundwater and the level of certainty of the contaminant mapping.

Consultation with parties responsible for nearby contaminated sites is encouraged, where applicable.
 When past uses of a site indicate potential for contamination, it may be prudent to assess the site for soil or groundwater contaminant levels even if the site is not currently listed on a contaminated sites database. The introduction of stormwater infiltration into an area of contamination can significantly complicate later cleanup efforts.  Maintain appropriate setbacks from slopes, foundations and other structures; the project geotechnical engineer should provide site-specific criteria that relate to drywells.  Avoid infiltration from pollutant hot spots, including:
 Roads greater than 25,000 ADT
 Heavy and light industrial pollutant source areas,
 Automotive repair shops
 Car washes
Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 793, Packet Page 893 F-53
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 9 ends

 Fleet storage areas
 Nurseries, agriculture, and heavily managed landscape areas with extensive use of fertilizer
 Fueling stations
 Projects that propose to infiltrate stormwater are encouraged to consult with the applicable groundwater management agency to the extent necessary to ensure that groundwater quality is protected.
 Drywells1 must be registered as a Class V injection well through EPA Region 9 (http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/groundwater/uic-classv.html).

Design Modifications
Several important modifications to a typical design are presented here to address system failure risks. Failed systems will achieve neither water quality treatment nor groundwater recharge objectives. At worst, a failed system becomes a public nuisance contributing to increased pollution pathways to groundwater aquifers, impaired surface water bodies, a negative perception of emerging BMP technologies, and wasted capital investment. These design modifications are:
 While a typical drywell used as a stormwater BMP should incorporate a pre-treatment device for sediment control, the coupling of a biofilter to the front end of a drywell, as described in the memorandum, is sufficient to manage and control sediment from reaching the drywell and clogging the infiltration system.  Include a shut off valve with a manually operated switch or actuator to prevent water from the biofiltration system from entering the drywell in the event of an acute pollutant exposure, such as an oil spill within the BMP’s catchment. This feature can be integrated with the outlet control structure that is recommended in biofiltration design. 1 Stormwater drywells have a variety of designs and may be referred to by other names including stormwater drainage wells, bored wells, and infiltration galleries. A Class V well by definition is any bored, drilled, or driven shaft, or dug hole that is deeper than its widest surface dimension, or an improved sinkhole, or a subsurface fluid distribution system (an infiltration system with piping to enhance infiltration capabilities).

Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 794, Packet Page 894 F-54
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 10 ends

 Include an alternative backup discharge location for biofiltered water, typically to the storm drain. This would allow the biofilter to continue to treat water and drain completed in the event that the drywell is offline, at capacity, or clogged.  Route overflow from the biofiltration area directly to the storm drain and not to the drywell. This helps prevent unfiltered water from entering the drywell.  Locate the drywell at the surface, adjacent to the biofilter, and not directly below it. This allows the inclusion of maintenance access in the form of an access hatch without the need to dismantle the biofilter. This alignment also allows for the inclusion of the shut off valve described above.

Maintenance Suggestions
Aside from the important design elements outlined above, and guidelines for their implementation, adequate maintenance is required to maintain a functioning system:
 Periodic replacement of the soil media is required to ensure that BMP soils feature low metal concentrations. Literature suggests that the soil adsorption of pollutants will eventually be saturated and soil material will need to be replaced. Unmaintained BMPs can result in breakthrough of metals and possible increased risk of groundwater contamination. This risk cannot be eliminated through design, and requires a dedicated life cycle maintenance program to ensure the system continues to project the groundwater resources form contamination risk. In general, biofiltration systems are expected to clog before pollutant accumulation reaches levels of concern (Pitt and Clark, 2010). Scraping the top 3 to 6 inches of media periodically can help extend life and minimize the risk of pollutant accumulation at levels of concern.  Other common maintenance issues are vegetation die-off, which reduces the biofiltration function since they play an important role in long term permeability and pollutant uptake.

Vegetation within a biofilter actively maintains the hydraulic conductivity of the planting media and vegetation die-off increases the risk of the BMP clogging. Vegetation should be maintained and should be actively replaced if it dies off.  Sediment and debris accumulation which limits hydrologic connectivity to the BMP is another issue that can only be addressed through maintenance. Periodic removal of sediment and debris is recommended. This will also typically require replacement Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 795, Packet Page 895 F-55
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 11 ends

vegetation and the top layer of media if the entire surface of the biofiltration system is excavated.

Sediment capture pretreatment is considered a standard component of typical drywell construction to reduce the risk of clogging. In the proposed standard design, the biofiltration system provides appropriate sediment capture to protect the drywell, provided that export of particles from the biofiltration media itself is controlled with an effective separation layer. On average, biofilters outperform sediment basins because biofiltration BMPs filter much smaller sized particles (Geosyntec and WWE, 2014).

If desired, a sediment capture pretreatment BMP could be a useful component upstream of biofiltration since they protect the engineered biofilter media from excessive sediment fluxes which can affect plant growth and clog biofilters. Therefore, while not incorporated into this standard design, a pretreatment sediment capture system, such as a sedimentation chamber or forebay, is recommended to improve the longevity of the biofilter component of the treatment train. For larger biofiltration systems, an engineered pre-treatment system such as a sedimentation basin or hydrodynamic separator (where space constraints are an issue) could be considered for enhanced protection from clogging.
4 REGULATORY BARRIERS AND TECHNICAL DESIGN GUIDANCE OBSTACLES The following regulatory and technical issues represent potential existing barriers to widespread implementation of drywells in California. It is recommended that these barriers be addressed to facilitate approval and use of drywell in the state.
 Statewide drywell pretreatment standards or guidance. Currently no regulatory framework exists in the State of California for permitting drywells or providing practitioners with guidance on pretreatment needs based on drainage area or soil conditions. For example, heavy industrial land uses with elevated metal and organic concentrations may require more advanced pretreatment or prohibition on drywells.

Similarly, shallow groundwater or highly transmissive soils may require the same.

Research is required to develop minimum standards (e.g., BMP unit process selection) for drywell implementation based on these site specific conditions. In addition there may be a need for specifications on contact time for pretreatment within the biofilter.

Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 796, Packet Page 896 F-56
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 12 ends

 Appropriate infiltration test methods and factors of safety for drywells. Infiltration testing methods are often approximations of full scale infiltration processes.

Retrospective analysis of measured or estimated vs. actual infiltration capacity of drywells would be beneficial to evaluate which infiltration testing methods are most reliable and what factor of safety is needed to reliably develop capacity estimates from testing data. 5 REFERENCES
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) (2015). “Stormwater infiltration wells – Studies, regulations, EPA registration”. Water Quality News Flash. Number 2015-06. March 16, 2015.

Datry, T., Malard, F., Gilbert, J. (2004). “Dynamics of solutes and dissolved oxygen in shallow urban groundwater below a stormwater infiltration basin” Science of the Total Environment. 329 (1-3):
p215-29
Dietz, M., Clausen, J., (2005) “A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment”. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 167, p123- 138.

Geosyntec and Wright Water Engineers (2010). International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Technical Summary: Nutrients. Prepared under Support from EPA, WERF, FHWA and EWRI/ASCE. (accessible at www.bmpdatabase.org)
Geosyntec and Wright Water Engineers (2014). International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database 2014 BMP Performance Summaries and Statistical Appendices. Prepared under Support from EPA, WERF, FHWA and EWRI/ASCE. (accessible at www.bmpdatabase.org) Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. & Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (2014). “International stormwater best management practices (BMP) database pollutant category statistical summary report.” Herrera (2014b). Final Report: 185th Avenue NE Bioretention Stormwater Treatment System Performance Monitoring. Prepared for City of Redmond, by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. March 6, 2014.

Herrera (2015a). Interim Project Report: City of Redmond Six Bioretention Swales Monitoring. Prepared for City of Redmond, by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. February 20, 2015
Herrera (2015b). Analysis of Bioretention Soil Media for Improved Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Copper Retention, Final Report, Prepared for Kitsap County by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, WA, July 17, 2015. Project team: Kitsap County, City of Seattle, Washington State Department of Transportation, Geosyntec Consultants.

Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 797, Packet Page 897 F-57
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 13 ends

Hsiech, C., Davis, A.P. (2005) “Evaluation and optimization of biofiltration media for treatment of urban storm water runoff.” Journal of Environmental Engineering. 131, p1521-1531.

Jurgens, B.C., Burow, K.R., Daglish, B.A., Shelton, J.L, (2008). “Hydrology, water chemistry, and factors affecting the transport of contaminants in the zone of contribution of public-supply well in Modesto, eastern San Joaquin Valley, California”. National Water Quality Assessment Program, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigation Report 2008 – 5156.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5156/pdf/sir20085156.pdf
Jurries, D., (2003). “Biofilters (bioswales, vegetative buffers, & constructed wetlands) for stormwater discharge pollution removal.” State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Los Angeles & San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council (2010). “Water augmentation study; Research, strategy and implementation report”.

Low Impact Development Initiative (LIDI) (2013a) “Bioretention technical specifications (BTS)”.

Low Impact Development Initiative (LIDI) (2013b). “Low impact development stormwater management standard details. Version 3/6/2013”
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) (2015). “Dry wells. Uses, regulations, and guidelines in California and elsewhere. Fact sheet to the City of Elk Grove, CA.

Pitt, R., Clark, S., Field, R., (1999). “Groundwater contamination potential from stormwater infiltration practices”. Urban Water, 1: p217-236
Read, J, Wevill,T., Fletcher, T., Deletic, A. (2008). “Variation among plant species in pollutant removal from stormwater in biofiltration systems”. Water Research. 42. P 893-902.

Roseen, R.M. and Stone, R.M. (2013). Bioretention Water Quality Treatment Performance Assessment.

Technical Memorandum. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities.

Rusciano, G.M., Obropta, C.C., (2007) “Biofiltration column study; Fecal coliform and total suspended solids reductions.” Transactions of the ASABE. 50, p1261-1269.

Shepp, D.L., (1996) “Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations observed in runoff from discrete, urbanized automotive-intensive land uses”. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington DC.

U.S. EPA (1999). “Preliminary data summary of urban storm water best management practices”, Report EPA-821-R-99-012, Aug.

Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 798, Packet Page 898 F-58
LIDI Drywell BMP
September 2015

Page 14 ends

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation District, 1994. Part 633, National Engineering Handbook: Chapter 26 Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters. October.

Weiss, P.T., LeFevre, G., Gulliver, J.S., (2008). “Contamination of soil and groundwater due to stormwater infiltration practices – A literature review”. University of Minnesota, Stormwater Assessment Project. Project Report No. 515.

Wilson, L.G., Osborn, M.D., Olson, K.L., Maida, S.M., Katz. L.T., (1990). “The ground water recharge and pollution potential of drywells in Pima County, Arizona”. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation. 10(3). p 114-121
Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 799, Packet Page 899 F-59
Detail number
page 1/2

DRYWELL STORMWATER BMP
(sloped sided, no on-street parking, sidewalk, underdrain, control vault outside of BMP) XX
Detail number

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARD DETAILS Municipality
Department NameCouncil Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 800, Packet Page 900 SPECIFICATIONS 1. 12” DEEP OPEN GRADED WASHED STONE (TYPICALLY 3/4” TO 1-1/2” (ASTM #4 STONE) OR 1” TO 2” (ASTM #3 STONE).

2. BRIDGING LAYER(S) PER LIDI BIORETENTION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (BTS). DO NOT USE FILTER FABRIC BETWEEN BSM AND AGGREGATE.

DO NOT USE FILTER FABRIC BETWEEN BIOFILTER SOIL MATERIAL (BSM) AND AGGREGATE.

3. 30 ML LINER MAY BE REQUIRED TO AVOID LATERAL INFILTRATION BELOW STREET; SUBJECT TO GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

4. MAINTAIN 6” MINIMUM BENCH OF NATIVE SOIL FOR SUPPORT OF ADJACENT SIDEWALK/ROAD (TYPICAL).

5. CURB AND GUTTER DETAIL 110.

6. CURB INLET DETAIL 120, GUTTER INLET ELEV (GIE). LOCATE ENERGY DISSIPATION COBBLE PADS AS SPECIFIED IN INLET DETAILS.

7. OVERFLOW STRUCTURE REQUIRED FOR IN-LINE SYSTEMS WITHOUT OVERFLOW BYPASS, DETAIL 140.

8. MAINTENANCE PIPES - 4” MIN. DIA. VERTICAL PVC PIPES CONNECTED TO UNDERDRAIN. PLACED AT START AND 3 FEET BEFORE END OF UNDERDRAIN. REQUIRES DIRECTIONAL SWEEP BEND. THREADED AND CAPPED

9. VEGETATION - PLANT SELECTION AND MULCH (OPTIONAL) PER BIORETENTION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.

10. 4” MIN. EXPOSED WALL HEIGHT

11. SIDEWALK DRAINAGE NOTCH 1” LOWER THAN SIDEWALK, SLOPED TO FACILITY

12. SEE PLANS FOR SIDEWALK RESTORATION

13. DEEP CURB DETAIL

14. BIORETENTION SOIL MEDIA (BSM). SPECIFICATION PER BIORETENTION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (BTS). SPECIFICATION SHOULD AVOID COMPOST OR OTHER MATERIAL KNOWN TO LEACH NUTRIENTS.

15. UNDERDRAIN, MIN. 4” DIA. PVC SDR 35 PERFORATED PIPE OR LARGER AS NEEDED TO CONVEY PEAK TREATED FLOWRATE WITH MINIMAL HEAD LOSS, SEE CONSTRUCTION NOTES.

16. 8” INLET PIPE OR OTHER.

17. LOW FLOW ORIFICE. (SEE DESIGN NOTE 11).

18. STABILIZED BACKFILL - TWO-SACK SLURRY MIX.

19. SIDEWALK PER MUNICIPAL STANDARDS.

20. COMPACTED BASE MATERIAL.

21. ACCESS HATCH WITH SHUT OF VALVE SWITCH. CONNECTED TO SHUT OF VALVE IN INLET PIPE.

22. MAINTENANCE HOLE COS TYPE 204-204 MH A OR B. ¾” I.D. MIN OBSERVATION PORT.

23. MANHOLE CONE - MODIFIED FLAT BOTTOM.

24. EXISTING SOILS. (SEE CONSTRUCTION NOTE 4, 8).

25. COMPACTED BACKFILL

26. PRE-CAST OR INSITU CAST CONTROL VAULT (SEE DESIGN NOTE 8)

27. ROCK - WASHED, SIZED BETWEEN 3/8” AND 1-1/2'

28. PERFORATED BASE OF CONTROL VAULT

29. DRILLED SHAFT WITH 6” WELDED STEEL OR THREADED PVC CASING (SEE DESIGN NOTE 13 & CONSTRUCTION NOTE 7,8)

30. 6 - 8” O.D. WELDED WIRE STAINLESS STEEL WELL SCREEN OR THREADED PVC SLOTTED SCREEN. SCREEN LENGTH + LENGTH + SLOT WIDTH TO BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL CONSTRAINTS .I.E. DISTANCE BETWEEN CLAY LAYER AND MIN. 10FT ABOVE SEASONAL HIGH

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

31. PVC STORMDRAIN CONNECTOR PIPE. SAME DIAMETER AS INFLOW PIPE TO CONTROL VAULT.

DESIGN NOTES

1. ADDITIONAL DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM PROVIDED IN LIDI BIORETENTION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (BTS) DOCUMENT.

2. BOTTOM WIDTH - PROVIDE 2 FT MINIMUM FLAT BREGENALL

3. OTTOM WITH A MAX 3:1 SLOPE FOR SURFACE FINISHING WITHIN BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM

4. IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE IS NOT AVAILABLE, SUBSTITUTE CLASS 3 PERMEABLE WITH AN OVERLYING 3” DEEP LAYER OF ¾” (NO. 4) OPEN-GRADED AGGREGATE.

5. PROVIDE SPOT ELEVATIONS AT INLETS ON CIVIL PLANS (FE, OE, GIE, SIE). SEE DETAIL 120.

6. EDGE CONDITION WILL VARY FOR NEW AND RETROFIT PROJECTS. CURB, WALL, AND SIDEWALK DETAILS MAY BE MODIFIED FOR PROJECT BY CIVIL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS.

7. PROVIDE MONITORING WELL IN EACH FACILITY, PER BIORETENTION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.

8. LONGITUDINAL SLOPE 6% WITH CHECK DAMS.

9. IF CHECK DAMS ARE NEEDED, SEE CONCRETE CHECK DAM DETAIL 121.

10. VARIATIONS IN DRY WELL DESIGN SHOULD BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE STORAGE VOLUME DESIGN AND TO SUIT LOCAL CONDITIONS AND CONSTRAINTS.

11. IN AREAS WITHOUT A STORMDRAIN, THE SYSTEM SHOULD ONLY BE CONSTRUCTED WHERE THE MAINTENANCE HOLE SURFACE INVERT IS ABOVE THE BIOFILTER OVERFLOW ELEVATION.

12. ALTERNATIVE VAULT LOCATIONS POSSIBLE INCLUDING WITHIN THE BIOFILTER FOOTPRINT.

13. VALVE CAN BE MOVED TO THE BIOFILTER IF DESIRED. REQUIRES STRUCTURAL SUPPORT.

14. ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS SUCH AS VENDOR-SUPPLIED DRY WELL PRODUCTS MAY BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE PROVIDED THAT THE ALTERNATIVE PRODUCT IS EQUAL.

DRYWELL STORMWATER BMP
(sloped sided, no on-street parking, sidewalk, underdrain, control vault outside of BMP) XX
Detail number

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARD DETAILS Municipality
Department NameCouncil Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 801, Packet Page 901 page 2/2 Dry wells are gravity-fed excavated pits lined with perforated casing and backfill d with gravel or stone (Fig. 1). Dry wells penetrate layers of clay soils with poor infi trati n rates to reach more permeable layers of soil, allowing for more rapid infiltran of stormwater. They can be used in conjunction with low impact development (LID) practices to reduce the harmful eff cts that traditi nal stormwater
management practice have had on the aquati ecosystem.

Dry wells not only aid in stormwater runoreducti n, but they can also increase groundwater recharge, are economical, and have minimal space requirements.

Figure 1. Idealized drawing of stormwater infiltration using a dry well Dry Well Description and Use

DRY WELLS

USES, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDELINES IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE Dry wells and other buried infiltrativ devices serving lots other than single-family homes are subject to the U.S. Environmental Protecti n Agency (US EPA) Underground Injection C ntrol (UIC) regulati ns. A dry well is considered a Class V injecon well, which is dened as a conduit for non-hazardous fluids hat is deeper than it is wide. Dry wells may be authorized to operate as long as they are registered with the US EPA, and only inject uncontaminated stormwater. The US EPA has no design requirements for dry wells; that responsibility is left to l cal authorities. However, the following design pracces are encouraged:
 Should not be constructed deeper than the seasonal high water table.  Follow local guidelines for setback distances from the dry well bottom to the water table.  Go through a thorough site evaluati n to prevent the spread of contaminants.  Util ze pretreatment to remove sediment and the pollutants that they frequently carry.  Use backfil to improve dry well column stability.

The US EPA has also set forth the following minimum requirements for Class V wells:
 Register injecti n wells at www.epa.gov/region09/water/groundwater/injecon-wells-register.html  Operate injecti n wells in a way that will not endanger underground sources of drinking water (USDW).  Abandoned Class V wells should be properly destroyed, with nofican to the US EPA, to prevent movement of contaminated flu ds into USDW.

In California, dry wells are used infrequently and with caution due to the concern that they provide a conduit for contaminants to enter the groundwater. In urban environments, scienti c reports show a lack of correlaon between the use of dry wells and groundwater contaminati n (Jurgens 2008, Los Angeles 2005). As a consequence, stormwater/LID guidelines oen do not include dry wells. Regional Water Quality Control Boards’ Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plans (SUSMP) also differ in technical specicati ns for dry well construction The California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) well water regulation are interpreted by some to have applicability to stormwater infiltra n through
dry wells. Due to the desire to maintain high groundwater quality and the lack of clarity about various technical considerati ns, many are reluctant to incorporate dry wells into stormwater management projects. Fig. 2. Dry well installed to receive runoff flowing through a lawn (Source: R. Pitt)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Region 9 Regulations Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 802, Packet Page 902 F-62
Dry Wells and Water Well Protection Policy
Throughout California, county environmental management departments are charged with implementing California DWR regulaons (Bulleti s 74-81, 74-90) to protect wells used to supply drinking water. These regulati ns are designed to prevent contaminati n of groundwater through improperly constructed or decommissioned wells. County staregularly inspect wells and the area around them to evaluate compliance with regulati ns. The very process that dry wells are designed to facilitate, namely the inltrati n of stormwater, stands in contradictio to the goals of Bulletin 74, which prohibits surface water from entering injection wells. Currently, individual county environmental health departments in California use their best professional judgment to evaluate how to manage this challenge.

Local Guidelines
Many requirements and design specifi ati ns for dry wells come from guidelines linked to the NPDES (Nati nal Polluti n Discharge Eliminati n System) permits, issued by the State or Regional Water Boards. In a few locales, city or county requirements also exist. In Los Angeles County, for example, informati n on placement and design of dry wells must be submitted as part of the permittin process for new development. Not all citi s and counti s have such requirements.

The Role of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board The State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards in California can prescribe requirements for discharges into California waters, including groundwater. Under California’s Porter-Cologne Act, the Water Boards have the authority to require a person wishing to operate an injection well to file a report of the discharge. These requirements must implement the
Boards’ water quality control plans (Basin Plans). The
requirements must take into considerati n the beneficial uses (domesti water, irrigati n, etc.) of the aff cted water and the water quality objective necessary to protect these benecial uses, as well as the need to prevent a nuisance.

California’s Anti-Degradation Policy
When evaluating the risk and benets of using dry wells, California’s an-degradati n policy (State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 68-16) is also considered. The an -
degradati n policy protects high quality water
(water that is higher in
quality than that prescribed by the Water
Boards’ plans and policies). Degradati n of
high quality water is permitted only if the discharge provides a maximum benefi to the people of the State, does not violate the Boards’ Basin
Plans and policies, and
when the discharge is
controlled by the best
practicab e treatment. The maximum benet to the State
is determined on a case by case basis taking into account the benefici l uses of the water, economic and social
costs, the environmental aspects of the proposed discharge, and the implementati n of feasible alternati e treatment or control methods. Factors to be considered
when evaluating the use of dry wells for stormwater management could involve determining if they:
 Provide an addition l source of water to augment the
water supply,
 Reduce the negative eff cts of runofl wing to surface waters, and  Minimally impact groundwater quality.

Consideraon and interpretation f these and related factors are the basis on which the state’s an -degradati n
policy is applied to dry well use and siti g.

US EPA Regulations (continued)
In California, Class V wells are overseen by the US EPA’s Region 9 office Class V wells already in place that are not in the registry must cease use and the operator must contact the Regional office An applicati n and inventory form must be submitted and injectio can resume aer 90 days, if approved. Aft r an inventory form is submitted the UIC Program will determine if the user is authorized to “inject”. A well will be prohibited if the user endangers drinking water, fails to submit inventory informati n or an application to the UIC Program, or fails to respond to a written request from the UIC Program. Some dry wells in the State have been constructed without going through this registrati n process while some countie (e.g., Los Angeles) enforce registrati n as part of permitting n development.

Typical Dry Well Guidelines at the Local Level
Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 803, Packet Page 903 F-63
Local Guidelines (continued)
Design specificans dier by city/county, with some standards varying signicantly. Local authorities should be consulted for specific guidelines. The following lists some of the common standards of the Los Angeles and San Diego SUSMPs as well as the Placer County LID Manual (documents that are linked to NPDES permits):
 Building setback: 10 – 20 feet minimum
 Soil: not suitable in soils with >30% clay or >40% silt  Water table: 3 – 10 feet minimum separati n between dry well botto and seasonal high water table
 Public supply wells: 100 feet minimum setback
 Separati n (center to center): 100 feet minimum
 Penetrati n: 10 feet minimum into permeable porous soils  Dry well surface inlet: 3 inch minimum above boom of retenon basin  Should not be used at sites with a slope >15%. (San Diego does not recommended sites with slopes >40%).

In 1951, the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the Bay Area restricted the use of dry wells in an eff rt to protect groundwater quality. Today, the San Francisco Public Util es Commission recommends construcng drainage wells that are much wider than deep, therefore, they are not technically dry wells. The City of Modesto is a somewhat unique case in California in that they have been using dry wells for over 50 years as one of their principal runomanagement tools. Dry wells are carefully scrutini ed under the NPDES/MS4 permit. The Central Valley Regional Board requires the City of Modesto to perform extensive monitoring of stormwater and groundwater. The use of dry wells has not directly resulted in groundwater problems in Modesto (Jurgens 2008).

Over a dozen other states have dry well requirements in place. States surrounding California may provide a helpful overview of statewide dry well requirements currently being implemented. Oregon, for example, permits the use of dry wells, but they must be sited and constructed following their guidelines. Dry wells also must be registered with the state prior to constructio and a fee, based on a sliding scale that is proporonal to risk, must be paid. Arizona is another state that has used dry wells for many decades. They too have a registrati n system along with a fee system. The table below compares regulati ns between Arizona and California, both located in US EPA Region 9.

Dry Well Regulations in Other States
Figure 3. Example dry well system design
Arizona California
Falls under USEPA Region 9 UIC program for Class V injection wells. Falls under USEPA Region 9 UIC program for Class V injectio wells.

Dry wells must be registered with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Fee are required when
registering.

Regional Water Quality Control Boards can prescribe discharge requirements for injection wells.

Requires Aquifer Protection Permit and approval by ADEQ prior to construcon.

No statewide permittin requirements for the use of dry
wells.

Requires information on design, pollutant characteristics and closure strategy.

Regional Water Quality Control Boards may require a report of discharge and other informaon. No formal, statewide
process for registraon or monitoring.

Requires monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, conngency planning, discharge limitations a compliance schedule, and closure guidelines. Injecon well requirements must protect beneficial uses (comply with the An-Degradaon policy).

A general permit covers facilities that have obtained a NPDES/MS4 permit and have a stormwater polluon prevention plan implemented.

Requirements may vary by region and municipality.

Vegetated swale directs
runoff to dry well
Dry well penetrates
into permeable soils for
more rapid infiltration
Gravel/stone backfill
adds structural support
Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 804, Packet Page 904 F-64
General Information
US EPA Class V Injection Well Information
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/index.cfmvv
US EPA California Injection Well Guidelines
http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/groundwater/uic-pdfs/calif5d-muniguide.pdf Forms and Registration
EPA Region 9 Injection Well Registration
http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/groundwater/injection-wells-register.html Region 9 Injection We l Contact: [email protected]
References
Jurgens, B.C., K.R. Burow, B.A. Dalgish, & J.L. Shelton. 2008. Hydrogeology, water chemistry, and factors affecg the transport of contaminants in the zone of contribuon of a public-supply well in Modesto, eastern San Joaquin Valley, California. National Water Quality Assessment Program, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Inve gaon Report 2008-5156. http:// ubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5156/pdf/sir20085156.pdf
The Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council. 2005. Los Angeles Basin Water Augmentation Study, Phase II Final Report. Los Angeles, CA. Posted at:
http://wate shedhealth.org/Files/document/265_2005_WAS%20Phase%20II%20Final%20Report_2005.pdf This factsheet was prepared by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which is working with the City of Elk Grove on a Proposition 84 funded study of the potential risks to groundwater quality associated with the use of dry wells. Written by Nelson Pi & Ary Ashoor.

For more information, contact Barbara Washburn, PhD at [email protected].

Regulations in Other States (continued)
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Washington, and Hawaii are a few of the others states with dry well regulations and guidelines. In New Jersey, some communities require dry well installation for all new and major remodels related to residential construction. They are typically designed to temporarily store and infiltrate roof runoff. Dry wells in New Jersey are prohibited in industrial or other areas where toxic chemicals might be used. In contrast, in Pennsylvania dry wells are permitted in industrial areas with restrictions, but not along roadways. In Washington, dry wells must be registered and constructed to specifications. The regulations of these states vary with respect to dry well design, use of pretreatment, separation from drinking water sources, distance from the water table, and other factors.

Useful Links and References
Conclusions
Currently there are no uniform state regulations or guidelines for dry wells in California. However, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the discretion to issue waste discharge requirements and to interpret and apply the AntiDegradation policy to the construction of new dry wells. Therefore, most regulations and guidelines occur at the city or county level and vary by region. Available information suggests that dry wells can be used safely if careful site evaluations are performed to determine if a dry well is suitable for the location. They can be an alternative to typical storm drainage systems that provide numerous benefits, including reducing localized flooding, recharging the aquifer, supporting the implementation of LID practices in areas with clay soils, thereby minimizing alterations to the hydrologic cycle which have damaging effects on valuable aquatic resources.

Of Interest Most dry wells are not holes in the ground fille with rocks.

This dry well system (left is being tested in the Sacramento area. It consists of 3 parts: a vegetated pretreatment feature, a structural pretreatment sedimentati n well, and the dry well itself, which contains layers of sand and gravel above the rocks. The goal of this design is to maximize the removal of pollutants, reduce clogging of the dry well, and promote ecient stormwater infiltran.

Figure 4. Dry well system
being tested in the Sacramento area.

Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 805, Packet Page 905 F-65

APPLICATION TO STORE AND RECOVER NON-NATIVE WATER

FROM THE

SEASIDE GROUNDWATER BASIN
INSTRUCTIONS: This Application form is for use by Standard Producers in the Seaside Groundwater Basin (Seaside Basin) for the purpose of obtaining approval from the Seaside Basin Watermaster (Watermaster) to store Non-Native water in, and to subsequently recover that stored water from, the Seaside Basin. The application process is as described in Section III.L.3.j.xx of the Amended Decision of the Monterey County Superior Court, Case No. M66343, filed February 9, 2007.

Name of Standard Producer (Applicant)
Contact Information for Applicant:

Contact Person: _________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________ Telephone: _____________________________________________________________ Proposed quantity of non-native water Applicant seeks to store through spreading or direct injection into the Seaside Basin (acre-feet per year):
_______________________________________________________________________ Proposed location(s) where the spreading or direct injection of non-native water into the Seaside Basin will occur. If injection will be performed using one or more injection wells, provide indentifying information for those wells including the aquifer(s) into which the injection will occur. If spreading will be performed, provide coordinate location information, as well as any physical street address information for the proposed location.
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Proposed location(s) where the stored water may be recovered. Provide identifying information for each well from which the stored water will be recovered, including the aquifer(s) from which recovery will occur.

Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 806, Packet Page 906 F-66
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Water quality characteristics of the non-native water proposed for spreading or direct injection into the Seaside Basin. Provide sufficient physical, chemical, and microbiological information about the water being proposed for storage, so that the Watermaster can determine whether or not storing such water will have any adverse water quality impacts on the Seaside Basin. Provide this information in the form of analytical results from a properly certified water testing laboratory, attached to this Application.

Also provide sufficient information to demonstrate to the Watermaster that the water quality characteristics of the water being proposed for storage will meet all of the requirements imposed on the Applicant by permits and/or approvals issued to the Applicant by the regulatory agency or agencies with jurisdiction.

Permits and approvals from regulatory agencies. Attach copies of all permits and approvals the applicant has received from regulatory agencies, which relate to the storage of water in the Seaside Basin. Such agencies will likely include some or all of the following:
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board
• California Department of Public Health
• County of Monterey Department of Health
• State Water Resources Control Board
Appendix F: Concept Designs
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 807, Packet Page 907 F-67

APPENDIX G
Hartnell Gulch Project Concept Designs and
Preliminary CEQA Checklist
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 808, Packet Page 908 APPENDIX G: HARTNELL GULCH PROJECT DESIGNS AND CEQA CHECKLIST This appendix contains information developed for the top selected multi-benefit project, Hartnell Gulch, located in the City of Monterey. Appendix components include the project description, 30% design drawings, Project Implementation Plan, and Preliminary CEQA Checklist.

These items are provided on the following pages of this appendix:

1. Hartnell Gulch Project Description ......................................................................................... G-2

2. 30% Plan Set .......................................................................................................................... G-7

3. Project Implementation Plan ................................................................................................. G-14

4. Preliminary Environmental (CEQA) Checklist ................................................................... G-23 ****
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 809, Packet Page 909 G-1

1. HARTNELL GULCH RESTORATION AND RUNOFF DIVERSION

PROJECT

SITE DESCRIPTION
Jurisdiction: City of Monterey
Location: Hartnell Gulch from Pacific Street downstream to Hartnell Street and from the southeastern corner of the Pacific Street public parking lot downstream to the confluence with Hartnell Creek.

Land Owner: City of Monterey
Catchment1: CM-11
Length of Creek Rehabilitation: 616 feet
Area of Vegetation Replacement: 0.70 acres

PROJECT CONCEPT
The project area within the drainage area to the proposed Hartnell Gulch project is shown on Figure 1A. The drainage area primarily includes residential and undeveloped areas includes the tributary catchment areas of two partially daylighted and partially culverted streams, Hartnell Creek’s north fork and south fork. The confluence of these streams is located within the proposed project footprint. The catchment area to the north (546 acres) drains to the northern fork of Hartnell Creek and enters the project area at Pacific Street (Figure 1B). The catchment area to the south (557 acres) drains to the southern fork of Hartnell Creek and enters the project area east of the Pacific Street public parking lot (i.e., Cypress Lot) (Figure 1B). Drainage from the upstream residential areas flow to the east and northeastward toward the Monterey City center. Hartnell Creek’s north and south fork channels flow into storm drains upstream of the project area. Perennial seepage of groundwater under the Monterey High School football field flows into the project area via the north fork at a rate of approximately 50,000 gallons per day. The project location is in a commercial area adjacent to the Monterey Public Library, where the creeks resurface and converge. Downstream of the project location, the creek is piped to an outfall that discharges to Monterey Bay, although this piped flow could be directed to Lake El Estero as part of the proposed Lake El Estero Diversion to Sanitary Sewer project.

The Hartnell Gulch project is comprised of two components: (1) creek rehabilitation, and (2) dry weather flow diversion to sanitary sewer, as shown on Figure 1B. The upstream boundaries of the project extent is located where the north fork of Hartnell Creek daylights at Pacific Street and where the south fork drains onto city property at the southeastern corner of the Pacific Street public parking lot (i.e., Cypress Lot). The downstream boundary of the project extent is located where Hartnell Creek is culverted at Hartnell Street. The creek rehabilitation is proposed to consist of removal of invasive plants, revegetation with native plants, and stabilization of the existing eroded channel. The grade of the channel bed would be raised several feet throughout the project area and bank stabilization and buried grade controls would be included to limit future instream erosion. 1 See Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study Report, Appendix D, Figure 2A Catchment Detail Map.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 810, Packet Page 910 G-2
Additionally, a drop structure is proposed to be placed at the downstream end of the project area to limit future instream erosion. Elevating the streambed would also provide aesthetic benefits, including increasing public access with construction of a pedestrian walkway alongside the creek bank. Photos of the existing conditions of Hartnell Gulch in Figure 1C. The proposed Hartnell Gulch revegetation plan from Ecological Concerns Incorporated (2016) is shown in Figure 1D and example riparian projects is shown in Figure 1E.

The project dry weather flow (April to October) diversion would entail tie-in and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Flows would be directed to the Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant (RTP) for recycling, to augment water supply. Project dry weather flows are proposed to be diverted at the downstream boundary of the project area, as shown on Figure 1B. Flow diversion structures will redirect dry weather flows from the channel to the 8-inch diameter sewer main on Hartnell Street via a proposed in-stream stop log structure, gravity pipe, hydrodynamic separator, pump station, forcemain, and new sanitary sewer manhole.

A preliminary Environmental Checklist has been prepared to evaluate the project based upon the 30% design (DD&A, 2018).

Proposed project is conceptual and subject to change based on future feasibility assessment, funding availability, and/or other information.

DESIGN INFORMATION
Tributary Drainage Area (TDA): 1,103 acres
TDA Imperviousness: 18 %
TDA Urbanized Area: 970 acres
Dry Weather Seepage Runoff: 28 acre-feet per year (April to October) Dry Weather Nuisance Runoff: 23 to 32 acre-feet per year (April to October) Sanitary Sewer Diversion Pump Rate1: 200 gallons per minute Length of Diversion Pipeline: 80 feet
1 Sanitary sewer diversion pump rate estimated based on: excess conveyance capacity of the gravity sewer main; excess capacity of the M1W Interceptor Pipeline with other potential runoff diversions; and the dry weather runoff rate.

PROJECT BENEFITS
Net Recovered Water Volume: 51 to 60 acre-feet per year (April to October) Sediment Load Reduced:

The project will reduce discharge of sediment and associated pollutants through diversion of dry weather flows. The stream restoration component of the project is not anticipated to affect sediment loads from the watershed except for sediment loadings associated with in-stream sources of Hartnell Gulch.

Flood Management Benefits: Stabilization of the bed and banks are anticipated to prevent excess erosion of the creek.

Natural Drainage System Benefits: Creek rehabilitation will include stabilization of incised creek channel.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 811, Packet Page 911 G-3
Habitat or Open Space Benefits: Rehabilitation of riparian corridor and re-establishment of native vegetation.

Community Benefits:

Placement of a public walkway along creek channel with
informational signage. The drainage area to Hartnell Gulch contains a Disadvantaged Community (DAC).

COST ESTIMATE

DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY COST
Capital Cost $1,300,000
Annual Operations and Maintenance Cost2 $35,000 per year Estimated Life Cycle Annual Cost3 $110,000 per year
Unit Project Cost of Recovered Water $ 1,800 to $2,100 per acre-foot 2 Includes sewer connection fees at the Regional Treatment Plant for the dry season, only. 3 Assumes 30-year design life at 4% interest rate.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 812, Packet Page 912 G-4
Monterey
Pump Station
Hartnell Creek
Iris Canyon Creek
P:\GIS\MRWPCA\Project\Concept Projects\1. Hartnell Gulch\Hartnel Gulch.mxd 9/19/2018 11:04:13 PM Legend
Hartnell Gulch Project Footprint
Hartnell Gulch Project Drainage Area
Project Map Extent
Stream
Watershed Delineation
Existing Infrastructure
M1W Interceptor Pipeline - Pressurized
M1W Interceptor Pipeline - Gravity
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Drain
"/ Pump Station
0 0.5
Miles
³ Monterey Peninsula Stormwater Resource Plan
Oakland, CA Spetember 2018
Hartnell Gulch
Restoration and Runoff Diversion Project
Monterey, CA
Catchment Map
Figure
1A
Proposed Diversion to
Sanitary Sewer
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 813, Packet Page 913 G-5
"/
U
Hartnell Creek
Iris
Canyon
Creek
Pacific St
Van
Buren St
Calle
Principal
Sargent Ct
Madison St
Hartnell St
Webster St
Munras Ave
Van Buren St
Cass St
P:\GIS\MRWPCA\Project\Concept Projects\1. Hartnell Gulch\Hartnel Gulch Zoom.mxd 9/19/2018 11:10:20 PM 0 200
Feet
³ Monterey Peninsula Stormwater Resource Plan
Hartnell Gulch
Restoration and Runoff Diversion Project
Monterey, CA
Project Map
Oakland, CA September 2018
Creekbed Restoration &
Replanting with Native Vegetation
Figure
1B
Diversion Route
Legend
Hartnell Gulch Project Footprint Existing Infrastructure Sanitary Sewer
Storm Drain
Open Channel
Proposed Control Measures
U Low-Flow Diversion Structure
"/ Wet Well Pump

Buried Grade Control
Diversion to Sanitary Sewer
Drop Structure
Pacific Street
Parking Lot
Monterey High School
To Football Field
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 814, Packet Page 914 G-6
30% Design Plan Set
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 815, Packet Page 915 G-7
SCALE:

DEPARTMENT OF PLANS AND PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF MONTEREY
NO. DATE REVISION
DATE:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

CAD DWG NAME: TEL: 831.646.3921 WEBSITE: WWW.MONTEREY.ORG 580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY, CA 93940
OF
1111 BROADWAY
TEL: 510-836-3034
OAKLAND, CA 94607
6TH FLOOR
WWW.GEOSYNTEC.COM
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION:

JEFF KREBS, P.E. 44032

PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
DATE
PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

JUDD GOODMAN, P.E. C 73783

SENIOR ENGINEER
DATE
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 816, Packet Page 916 G-8
SCALE:

DEPARTMENT OF PLANS AND PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF MONTEREY
NO. DATE REVISION
DATE:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

JEFF KREBS, P.E. 44032

PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
DATE
PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

JUDD GOODMAN, P.E. C 73783

SENIOR ENGINEER
DATE
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 817, Packet Page 917 G-9
SCALE:

DEPARTMENT OF PLANS AND PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF MONTEREY
NO. DATE REVISION
DATE:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

JEFF KREBS, P.E. 44032

PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
DATE
PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

JUDD GOODMAN, P.E. C 73783

SENIOR ENGINEER
DATE
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 818, Packet Page 918 G-10
SCALE:

DEPARTMENT OF PLANS AND PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF MONTEREY
NO. DATE REVISION
DATE:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

JEFF KREBS, P.E. 44032

PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
DATE
PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

JUDD GOODMAN, P.E. C 73783

SENIOR ENGINEER
DATE
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 819, Packet Page 919 G-11

NON-NATIVE ANNUALS

KIKUYU GRASS

GINKGO TREE
FENNEL
OXALIS

NAKED LADY BULBS
PRUNUS

PALM SEEDLING

ELM HEDGE
IVY

EUCALYPTUS
FIG

IVY ALONG WALL

CAPE IVY

MOSTLY BARE WITH ANNUALS

AND A LITTLE BLACKBERRY

MONTBRETIA

ARBORESCENT IVY IN FRUIT

BIG MULTI-TRUNK ELM
(CROOKED/MOST TRUNKS FALLING)
ELM

VERY LARGE CYPRESS

CYPRESS
10 ELM

FALLING ELM

ROBINIA (NON-NATIVE)
ELM
4 ELM
5 POPULUS TRUNKS WITH SUCKERS
SCALE: 1" = 15'-0"
0 5 15 30 90 150
OXALIS

NON-NATIVE ANNUALS

ENGLIGH IVYHIMALAYAN BLACKBERRYELM SEEDLINGS

BINDWEEDKIKUYU GRASS

VELDTGRASS

CAPE IVY

LEGEND OF INVASIVE

GROUNDCOVER HATCHES

HARTNELL GULCH PARK

RESTORATION PLAN
for the

CITY OF MONTEREY

SHEET NUMBER
Drawn by: Dakotah Bertsch
Landscape Designer, Ecological Concerns Inc.
609 Pacific Avenue, Suite 101, Santa Cruz
831‐459‐0656
www.ecologicalconcerns.com

PROPIETARY INFORMATION DISCLAIMER
The drawings on this sheet are the property of
Ecological Concerns Incorporated (ECI). They may
not be altered, reproduced or used without the
consent of ECI. The proper transfer of data herein,
electronically or otherwise, shall be the
responsibility of the user without liability to ECI.

Unauthorized use is prohibited.

APPROVAL

SHEET TITLE

ISSUANCES AND REVISIONS
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
1 FEB 4, 2016 PRESENTATION
R1

INVASIVE PLANT

REMOVAL PLAN

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 820, Packet Page 920 G-12

NATIVE MORNING GLORY

ALONG EDGE OF PARKING/

ON ELM AND RUBUS

REDWOOD

NUMEROUS
SALIX
4 QUERCUS

QUERCUS

PLANTED CYPRESS

TOPPED SALIX
SALIX
3 QUERCUS
4 SMALL QUERCUS

POSSIBLY MORE

UNDER DENSE IVY
2 QUERCUS
2 QUERCUS SEEDLINGS

QUERCUS

QUERCUS & SALIX MIX

QUERCUS
SALIX

RIBES SANGUINIUM

REDWOOD
SALIX

SPLITTING MULTI-TRUNK SALIX
4 SALIX

LARGE MONTEREY CYPRESS
TRUNK
SCALE: 1" = 15'-0"
0 5 15 30 90 150

DENSE SALIX
SMALL PLANTED Q. AGRIFOLIA

LARGE EUCALYPTUS TRUNK

LIMBED SALIX

TOP OF KNOLL

RESERVE FOR LOOKOUT AREA
PLANT STEEP CHANNEL BANKS (2'-3' HIGH)
OPTIONAL: RESERVE SPACE FOR PATH

ALONG EDGE OF PARKING LOT

FROM SPECIAL AREA TO STEPS

SPECIAL PLANTING AREA - NATIVE GARDEN

TOP OF SLOPE / BORDER PLANTING MIX

MID-SLOPE / BANK STABILIZATION MIX

SLOPE BOTTOM / CHANNEL EDGE MIX

EXISTING NATIVE TREE / SHRUB
PROTECT IN PLACE WHERE FEASIBLE:

Quercus agrifolia (some planted) Salix lasiolepis Cupressus macrocarpa (planted) Sequoia sempervirens (planted) Ribes sanguineum (planted)

LEGEND OF NATIVE

PLANTING AREA SPECIES MIXES

WILLOW STAKES

CUTTINGS TO BE SELECTED FROM ONSITE MATERIAL, PER DETAIL TBD

OAK TREES
Quercus agrifolia

BOX ELDER TREE
Acer negundo

HARTNELL GULCH PARK

RESTORATION PLAN
for the

CITY OF MONTEREY

SHEET NUMBER
Drawn by: Dakotah Bertsch
Landscape Designer, Ecological Concerns Inc.
609 Pacific Avenue, Suite 101, Santa Cruz
831‐459‐0656
www.ecologicalconcerns.com

Unauthorized use is prohibited.

APPROVAL

SHEET TITLE

ISSUANCES AND REVISIONS
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
1 FEB 4, 2016 PRESENTATION
R2
NATIVE

PLANTING PLAN

NATIVE PLANT SPECIES LIST BY MIX
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 821, Packet Page 921 G-13
Project Implementation
Plan
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 822, Packet Page 922 G-14
Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff
Diversion Project
Project Implementation Plan
Prepared for
City of Monterey
Monterey One Water
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
1111 Broadway, 6th Floor
Oakland, California 94607
Project Number: WW2405
September 20, 2018
DRAFT
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 823, Packet Page 923 G-15

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 OVERVIEW OF PLAN ...................................................................................................................1 MAJOR IMPLEMENTATION TASKS .........................................................................................1

1. Detailed Site Assessment and Vegetation Planning ........................................................1 Topographic Survey ........................................................................................................1 Archaeological/Biological Survey ..................................................................................2 Utility Locating/ Potholing ..............................................................................................2 Flow and Water Quality Monitoring (Dry Season) .........................................................2 Site Reconnaissance and Geotechnical Field Investigation ............................................2 Procurement and Starting of Native Plants .....................................................................2

2. Engineering and Design ..................................................................................................3 CEQA Analysis ...............................................................................................................3 60% Design .....................................................................................................................3 90% Design .....................................................................................................................4 100% Design ...................................................................................................................4 As-Builts ..........................................................................................................................4

3. Agreements and Permitting .............................................................................................4

4. Construction ....................................................................................................................5

5. Ongoing Maintenance, Monitoring, and Evaluation .......................................................5

6. Other Tasks ......................................................................................................................6 SCHEDULE .....................................................................................................................................6 Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 824, Packet Page 924 G-16

INTRODUCTION
The Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff Diversion project entails creek rehabilitation and dry weather flow diversion for the daylighted portion of Hartnell Creek from Pacific Street to Hartnell Street. A full description of the project is provided in the project concept description provided in Appendix G of the Monterey Peninsula Stormwater Resource Plan. The project’s goals are to: rehabilitate the current creek (i.e., remove invasive plants, revegetate with native plants, and stabilize the existing eroded channel); divert dry weather runoff to the sanitary sewer for treatment and water recovery; and increase public access to the creek for conservation and interpretive enhancement. This Project Implementation Plan is intended to be reviewed accompanying the project concept description and 30% design drawings. This plan describes the next tasks needed to implement (i.e., fully construct) the project.

OVERVIEW OF PLAN
This project implementation plan includes a summary of the major implementation tasks and estimated schedule for each task. Descriptions are provided for sub-tasks needed for each major implementation task. Detailed descriptions of agreements, procurement of funds, hiring contractors, and permitting and grant reporting requirements are not included.

MAJOR IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
Major tasks needed to implement the Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff Diversion project include:

1. Detailed Site Assessment

2. Engineering and Design

3. Agreements and Permitting

4. Construction

5. Ongoing Maintenance, Monitoring, and Evaluation

6. Other Tasks
Each of these major implementation tasks are described in the following sections.

1. Detailed Site Assessment and Vegetation Planning
The remaining detailed site assessment needs are summarized below.

Topographic Survey
A detailed topographic survey of the existing daylighted creek and surrounding area is needed to finalize the grading in the engineering design drawings. It is suggested that the survey include one-foot contour lines, existing structures and utilities, and spot elevations of storm drain inlets and outlets.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 825, Packet Page 925 G-17
Archaeological/Biological Survey
Archaeological and biological surveys are needed as part of completion of recommended CEQA Analysis identified in the CEQA Checklist completed for the project. A preconstruction archaeological survey (surface examination) is needed to ensure no archaeological sites are within the construction area and to inventory the site for the presence of archaeological resources. A biological survey and report would be conducted to analyze potential sensitive, special status, or rare and endangered species, as well as potential impacts to biological resources based on project construction and operation. Based on the findings of these studies, the design may need to be altered and/or construction mitigation measures may need to be implemented to avoid a significant impact.

Utility Locating/ Potholing
The location of utilities within the footprint of the project is needed prior to siting project piping, pumps, and other components. This will include identification of size, material, and elevations of utility lines, as needed. This task will entail location of underground utilities (i.e., storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electric, cable, communications, etc.), and potholing in specific locations.

Flow and Water Quality Monitoring (Dry Season)
It is recommended that dry weather flow monitoring be conducted to estimate the volume of runoff that can be expected during the dry season and provide a more detailed estimate of the volume that would be diverted to the sanitary sewer for reuse at the Regional Treatment Plant.

Dry weather flow monitoring would entail installation of a flow meter in the creek and would ideally be conducted from April through September. Water quality grab samples would be taken during this period to provide information regarding the level of pollutants that may be present in the diverted flow.

Site Reconnaissance and Geotechnical Field Investigation Site reconnaissance and geotechnical field investigation will be needed to support the design of the proposed bridge abutments, pedestrian walkway piers or caissons, and retaining walls. The geotechnical field investigation is anticipated to include review of existing geotechnical and geological information and literature, advancing geotechnical soil borings and cone penetration tests (CPTs), soil sample collection, laboratory testing, and data evaluation.

Procurement and Starting of Native Plants
Propagation of native plants would begin at least a year prior to fall-season planting and would require a contract grow with a restoration nursery. To ensure local genetics for the restoration plants, propagules would be collected from Monterey County sources as close to the site as feasible. All project plants would be nursery-grown in compliance with CalPhytos Guidelines to Minimize Phytophthora Pathogens in Restoration Nurseries (Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats, 2016, released by the California Oak Mortality Task Force).

A summary of site assessment tasks and an estimated schedule is provided; planning and reporting for each sub-task is included in the estimated schedule.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 826, Packet Page 926 G-18
Tasks Description Time Needed for Completion

1.1 Topographic Survey 2 months

1.2 Archaeological and Biological Surveys 3 months

1.3 Utility Locating/Potholing 2 months

1.4 Flow and Water Quality Monitoring and
Reporting
6 months (dry season)

1.5 Geotechnical Assessments 2 months

1.6 Propagation of Native Plants 1 year prior to Fall Season Planting

2. Engineering and Design
This task may be iterative with Agreements and Permitting. A 30% site plan, which includes proposed plan, profile, and cross-section drawings for the existing and proposed conditions, has been completed. Based on findings of the detailed site assessment and permitting constraints (as applicable), it is recommended that 60%, 90%, and 100% design drawings be completed for review by the City of Monterey following completion of additional site assessment. As-Built drawings are recommended to document the project at the conclusion of construction activities.

A summary of the analyses needed corresponding with each design phase is provided:

CEQA Analysis
Additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis is needed. Using previously conducted studies or additional findings from the assessments, the technical reports identified in the Preliminary CEQA Checklist would be completed in parallel with the development of the 60% Design. These include a Biological Report and Wetland Delineation, the Archaeological Survey Report and Tribal Consultation, Hydrologic Report, Erosion Control Plan, and Geological Report. Based on the preliminary conclusions of the CEQA Checklist, it is anticipated that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) would be adequate for the project to meet CEQA requirements. However, if significant and unavoidable impacts are identified during the development of the technical reports, an environmental impact report (EIR) may be needed. An IS or EIR would require a 30-day public comment period. 60% Design
The completion of the 60% design will incorporate a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis examining the water surface depth, velocity, and effective shear stress for a range of storm events, including the 2-, 10-, and 100-year return period flowrates. Continuous hydrologic, hydraulic, and geomorphic simulations may be performed if necessary for CEQA impact analysis. The height of bridge decks, material of the channel bed, type of bank reinforcement, and sizing of buried grade controls will be based on the hydraulic analysis. The 60% design will include a refined grading plan, updated vegetation and landscaping plan, site plan, creek profiles, and cross-sections, and standard detail drawings for the creek rehabilitation and runoff diversion components. Completion of the 60% design will include approval from City of Monterey Boards and Commissions.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 827, Packet Page 927 G-19
90% Design
The 90% design will include specific design details of the proposed pump station, bridge abutments, pier or caisson foundations, retaining walls, and walkway lighting. Project component specifications will also be provided. It is anticipated that most permitting applications would be submitted and close to approval prior to completion of the 90% design. 100% Design
The 100% design will include final revisions suggested by the City and/or required per permitting authorities. This 100% design will be included in a bid package for construction contractors. Construction tasks and notes will be included in the 100% design drawing.

As-Builts
As-Built drawings would be developed following completion of construction tasks. As-builts are a revision of the 100% design drawings and include any design changes needed resulting from findings arising during construction.

A summary of each design drawing task and an estimated schedule is provided; the schedule includes the engineering analyses and assumes two drafts and one final for each drawing.

Tasks Description Time needed for completion

2.1 CEQA Technical Reports and Initial Study 4 months

2.2 Draft and Final 60% Design Drawings 4 months

2.3 Draft and Final 90% Design Drawings 6 months

2.4 Draft and Final 100% Design Drawings 2 months

2.5 As-Builts 1 month (following construction)

3. Agreements and Permitting
A number of agreements and permits are anticipated to be needed prior to constructing, operating, and maintaining the project. The list below includes the construction permits that may be needed for the project:

1. California Department of Fish and Wildlife – 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement.

2. US Fish and Wildlife Service – Authorization Under the Endangered Species Act.

3. US Army Corps of Engineers – Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit.

4. Regional Water Quality Control Board – Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

5. City of Monterey – IS/MND approval, other applicable construction permits.

6. Monterey One Water – Sewer Discharge and Connection Permit.

7. Monterey Bay Air Quality Management District construction permit(s).

Additional permits may be needed for project operation. These are not included in this Project Implementation Plan.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 828, Packet Page 928 G-20
Agreements with other jurisdictional bodies may be needed prior to operating the facility.

Institutional agreement may be needed with Monterey One Water and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

The estimated time frame for completing permitting and agreements is anticipated to be 6 months.

4. Construction
A detailed timeline for construction would need to be completed following procurement of a contractor. The estimated major construction tasks are listed below:

1. Mobilization

2. Clearing and grubbing

3. Dewatering and temporary diversion of creek

4. Grading

5. Construction of drop structure

6. In-stream stabilization (bed material placement, bank reinforcement, buried grade control)

7. Diversion piping, pump, pre-treatment

8. Bridge and pedestrian access paths

9. Walkway lighting

10. Planting and revegetation

11. Installation public education signage
It is anticipated that construction would take approximately 7 months to complete.

5. Ongoing Maintenance, Monitoring, and Evaluation
Ongoing maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation will be needed following construction of the project. The maintenance, operations, monitoring, and inspection needs should be documented in a detailed operations and maintenance (O&M) and monitoring handbook. This handbook would describe other maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation tasks and needed frequency. These tasks could include but may not be limited to:
• Operation of pumps, weir board, and other diversion appurtenances. • Project regular inspection and maintenance, including diversion components, vegetation, and trash rack, among other maintenance needs.
• Major maintenance/repair needs.
• Monitoring, including flow, water quality, geomorphic stability, vegetation establishment.
• Ongoing public education and visual monitoring of creek restoration progress.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 829, Packet Page 929 G-21
All of the tasks included in the O&M and monitoring handbook would initiate following construction completion and would be ongoing.

6. Other Tasks
Other tasks not included in the schedule and summary above include but are not limited to:

1. Releasing bids, selection and hiring of contractors to complete work.

2. Procurement of funds to complete work (i.e., grant applications).

3. Other reporting related to grant funds or permitting.

4. Additional community and City approval needs (City of Monterey).

5. Regional approval needs (M1W, water district, IRWMP representatives, MRSWMP representatives, etc.).

6. Public announcements/outreach.

Many of these tasks are difficult to predict and thus the schedule is not included in the above task.

SCHEDULE
A summary of the schedule is provided. The total time estimated to complete each major implementation task is provided. Implementation tasks are difficult to predict and thus these schedule estimates may be shorter or longer than what is ultimately needed. It is assumed that these major tasks will overlap, but it is anticipated that most tasks would need to be fully completed before a subsequent task can be completed (e.g., site assessment tasks must be completed before engineering design can be completed; design must be completed before permitting can be completed, etc.).

1. Detailed Site Assessment – 7 months for assessments; an additional 5+ months for complete propagation of Native Plants.

2. Engineering Design and CEQA – 16 months prior to construction (assumes permits/agreements occur concurrently); 1 month post-construction.

3. Agreements and Permitting – 6 months (anticipated to be conducted following completion of 60% Design and prior to completion of 90% Design).

4. Construction – 7 months.

5. Ongoing Maintenance, Monitoring, and Evaluation – ongoing.

6. Other Tasks – no time prediction provided.
*****
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 830, Packet Page 930 G-22
Preliminary CEQA
Checklist
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 831, Packet Page 931 G-23
Prepared for
Monterey One Water
5 Harris Court
Monterey, California 93940

PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST

HARTNELL GULCH RESTORATION

AND RUNOFF DIVERSION PROJECT
Prepared by
947 Cass Street #5
Monterey, California 93940
With Assistance from
1111 Broadway, 6th Floor
Oakland, California 94607
September 2018
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 832, Packet Page 932 G-24

PREFACE
The following presents a Preliminary Environmental Checklist for the Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff Diversion Project. This document has been prepared as part of the efforts underway for the Stormwater Resources Plan (SWRP) for which the lead entity is Monterey One Water.

The Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff Diversion Project is being proposed by the City of Monterey. This Preliminary Environmental Checklist is an early stage environment document to assist the City of Monterey in scoping and completion of the required future environmental in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The level of project design for the Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff Diversion Project is still preliminary; therefore, this document identifies pending technical analyses and project design documentation that will be required to support final determinations of significance in a future Initial Study to be prepared by the City of Monterey.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 833, Packet Page 933 G-25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Project Summary .................................................................................................................. 1

2. Project Packground Background .......................................................................................... 1

3. Level of Information ............................................................................................................ 2

4. Project Description ............................................................................................................... 2

5. Surrounding Land Use and Setting ...................................................................................... 4

6. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Potentially Required ........................................ 4

7. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................ 4

8. Discussion of Preliminary environmental Checklist Findings ............................................. 5

8.1. Aesthetics...................................................................................................................... 6

8.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................. 9

8.3. Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 10

8.4. Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 16

8.5. Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 20

8.6. Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 23

8.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 27

8.8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 29

8.9. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................... 33

8.10. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................... 39

8.11. Mineral Resources .................................................................................................. 40

8.12. Noise ....................................................................................................................... 41

8.13. Population and Housing .......................................................................................... 43

8.14. Public Services ........................................................................................................ 44

8.15. Recreation ............................................................................................................... 45

8.16. Transportation and Traffic ...................................................................................... 46

8.17. Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 48

8.18. Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................. 50

8.19. Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................... 53

9. References .......................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 834, Packet Page 934 G-26

1. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Title
Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff Diversion Project B. Lead Agency
City of Monterey, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940 C. Contact Person
Jeff Krebs, Senior Engineer, (831) 646-3921
D. Project Location
The proposed project is located with the Hartnell Gulch between Pacific Street and Hartnell Street in the City of Monterey, CA 93940. See Figure 1.

E. Project Sponsor
City of Monterey, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940 F. Zoning
Industrial, Commercial, and Planned Community
G. Project Overview
The Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff Diversion Project (proposed project) is comprised of two parts: 1) creek restoration and improvements and, 2) dry weather flow diversion to the sanitary sewer in the Hartnell Gulch area in downtown Monterey.

2. PROJECT PACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The proposed project is a part of the Stormwater Resources Plan (SWRP) for which the lead entity is Monterey One Water. Monterey One Water (through its technical consultant Geosyntec Consultants) has prepared the Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP on behalf of the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program (MRSWMP), including the cities of Carmel-by-theSea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside, and Monterey County. The purpose of the SWRP is to identify stormwater capture project opportunities that could be utilized as new water supply sources for the Monterey Peninsula and provide additional water quality and environmental benefits. This project is also part of the Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study (Water Recovery Study); the Water Recover Study’s purpose is to identify and evaluate potential projects to capture sources of wet and dry weather runoff within the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Region (the Planning Area) for water recovery and use. All components of the SWRP and the Water Recovery Study were discussed and reviewed by the Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which included cooperating entities, regulators, and other interested parties, and the Monterey Peninsula Technical Stakeholder Group, which included participants familiar with stormwater and wastewater distribution systems, treatment, and/or those with technical knowledge of the local aquifer and groundwater basin. As part of the work conducted for the Water Recovery Study by the Study participants, potential projects were identified that could Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 835, Packet Page 935 G-27
recover wet and dry weather runoff for water supply and then these were further reviewed for screening criteria. Potential project types included opportunities for use of existing storm drains that receive runoff from substantial tributary areas and that could be conveyed to sanitary sewer pump stations which would divert dry-weather runoff to the sanitary sewer system for treatment and reuse. Additional project types considered include storage and diversion, infiltration, or irrigation from lakes and reservoirs; infiltration into a potable water supply aquifer; and on-site capture and use. In total, 240 projects were identified as part of the study, including 79 planned projects submitted by stakeholders for the SWRP, of which 32 were also Water Recovery Study projects.

The proposed Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff Diversion Project is one of seven projects selected for concept design during a TAC meeting held on February 22, 2018. The selection process considered the preliminary project scores, agency prioritization, input from the Monterey Peninsula Stakeholder Group, and other local and institutional knowledge. Based on Stakeholder and TAC input and comments, the primary factor in project selection was to capture as much usable water as possible to help meet dry weather recycled water demands and augment water supply.

3. LEVEL OF INFORMATION
This preliminary Environmental Checklist evaluates the proposed project based upon the conceptual design developed to 10%. Therefore, the analysis provided below using the Initial Study Checklist from Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines is preliminary. As noted, there are several Checklist topical areas where additional design-level information or specific technical analysis is needed to complete the analysis. This information will be available in future design phases, at which time the Initial Study Checklist will be completed by the lead agency for the proposed project. The following provides a general description and related analysis based upon project details known to date.

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project area is within the Hartnell Gulch watershed in the City of Monterey as shown on Figure 2. The 1.7 square mile watershed primarily includes residential development as well as undeveloped drainage ravines (also referred to as “gulches”). Drainage from the upstream residential area flows in an incised channel past the Monterey Library at the project area and then northeastward toward the town center. The two primary creek channels in the watershed (the north fork and the south fork of Hartnell Creek) flow into the storm drain system upstream of the project site. The project area is in a commercial area where the creeks resurface and converge, adjacent to the Monterey Public Library. Downstream of the project location, at the Trader Joe’s parking lot, the creek is enclosed in culverts and is piped to the discharge point in Monterey Bay under Wharf #2. The upstream boundaries of the project extent are located where the north fork of Hartnell Creek daylights at Pacific Street and where the south fork drains onto city property at the southeastern corner of the Pacific Street public parking lot (i.e., Cypress Lot).

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 836, Packet Page 936 G-28
The downstream boundary of the project extent is where the creek drops back underground at Hartnell Street after the confluence of the norther and south fork (at 550 Hartnell Street).

The proposed project is comprised of two components as shown on Figure 3; these include (1) creek rehabilitation, and (2) dry weather flow diversion to sanitary sewer. The creek rehabilitation is proposed to consist of removal of invasive plants, revegetation with native plants, and stabilization of the existing eroded channel. The grade of the channel bed would be raised several feet throughout the project area and bank stabilization and buried grade controls would be included to limit future instream erosion. Additionally, a drop structure is proposed to be placed at the downstream end of the project area to limit future instream erosion. Elevation of the streambed would provide opportunity for increased public access with construction of a pedestrian walkway alongside the creek bank.

The second part of the project consists of diverting dry weather flows (April to October) from the approximately 1,100-acre tributary drainage area to the sanitary sewer for recycling at the Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant to augment water supply. Flows will be diverted at the downstream boundary of the project area as shown on Figure 2 into the gravity sewer main in Hartnell Street. Pump station capacity for accepting additional storm drain diversions was considered as part of the Water Recovery Study. Within the M1W service area, diverted runoff will travel via gravity sewer and then through one of the M1W Interceptor Pipelines (pressurized force mains and/or gravity main) to the Regional Treatment Plant (RTP). At the RTP, wastewater undergoes primary and secondary treatment and then can be reclaimed by either: (1) undergoing tertiary treatment and used as recycled ‘purple pipe’ water for irrigation, via the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project (SVRP) recycled water plant and the Castroville Seawater Intrusion (CSIP) distribution system; or (2) starting in 2019, undergoing advanced treatment, transport, and injection into the Seaside Groundwater Basin, via the Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) of the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment (PWM/GWR) Project currently under construction. An average of 60 percent of M1W wastewater is recycled each year and that percentage will increase when the PWM/GWR Project is operational. M1W currently serves a population of approximately 250,000 people (M1W, 2017) and treats 19.2 million gallons per day (MGD) average dry weather flow (ADWF), with a peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of 36.8 MGD (MRWPCA, 2016). The RTP is permitted for design flows of 29.6 MGD ADWF and 75.6 MGD PWWF, indicating available capacity for future runoff diversions.

At an estimated pump capacity of 200 gallons per minute (gpm), the project is estimated to achieve between 51 to 60 acre-feet/year (AFY) of water supply (Geosyntec 2017). See Table 1 below for a summary of project characteristics.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 837, Packet Page 937 G-29
Table 1. Design Information
Tributary Drainage Area (TDA): 1,103 acres
TDA Imperviousness: 18 %
TDA Urbanized Area: 970 acres
Dry Weather Seepage Runoff: 28 acre-feet per year (April to October) Dry Weather Nuisance Runoff: 23 to 32 acre-feet per year (April to October) Sanitary Sewer Diversion Pump Rate1: 200 gallons per minute Length of Diversion Pipeline: 80 feet
Source: Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff Diversion Project Concept Design (Draft August, 2018)

5. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND SETTING
The project site is located within a developed urban environment. To the south of the project site are various office buildings and parking lots. To the east of the project site is Hartnell Street. To the north of the project site is the Monterey County Public Library and a historic adobe building which historically has been occupied by various restaurants. To the west of the Project site Colon Inn at 707 Pacific Street and various offices buildings and parking lots bordering the drainages along Pacific Street. Hartnell Gulch is a semi-natural waterway that conveys overland drainage from the hills above Monterey to the Monterey Bay (Monterey 2009). Immediately downstream from the project site Hartnell Gulch is similarly above ground and heavily vegetated. A raised pedestrian walkway was constructed by the City in this area in 2010. The walkway provides direct pedestrian access to the Trader Joes parking lot from Hartnell Street. At this location, the drainage in Hartnell Gulch is conveyed into an underground pipe/culvert system and carried to the Monterey Bay.

6. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS POTENTIALLY

REQUIRED
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State Water Resources Control Board, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
This section identifies the environmental impacts of this project by answering questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Environmental Checklist Form. Impacts are categorized as follows:
• Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant, or where the established threshold has been exceeded. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may be required.
• Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from Potentially Significant Impact to a Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation measures are prescribed to reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 838, Packet Page 938 G-30
• Less Than Significant applies when the project will affect or is affected by the environment, but based on sources cited in the report, the impact will not have an adverse effect. For the purpose of this report, beneficial impacts are also identified as less than significant. The benefit is identified in the discussion of impacts, which follows each checklist category. • A No Impact answer is adequately supported if referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A No Impact Answer is explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.

For this report, as is noted above, the project has been defined at a conceptual level with limited design details available. Thus, where the potential impacts cannot be identified due to lack of information on the project itself or where further technical analysis is needed to define the impact, this is noted in the checklist below. Based on the available information on the project, the following environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as further discussed within the checklist categories on the following pages.

Table 2. Summary of Significance Determination
Topic Area Potentially Significant
Impact Identified
Level of Significance to be Determined
Pending Technical Analysis/Design Document
Aesthetics Landscape Plan, Lighting Plan
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources X Biological Report, Wetland Delineation Cultural Resources X Archaeological Survey Report
Geology/Soils Erosion Control Plan, Geological Report
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality X Hydrological Report
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise X
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources Archaeological Report, Tribal Consultation Utilities/Service Systems Hydrological Report
Mandatory Findings of
Significance X See Above

8. DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FINDINGS A determination on the level of significance of environmental effects cannot be made without additional information as detailed in the Preliminary Checklist below due to the preliminary nature of the project design and well as the topical areas requiring additional technical evaluation. The Checklist identifies additional project information on the project design that is needed. The Preliminary Checklist also identifies the project specific technical studies that are needed to complete the CEQA documentation. Once studies are prepared, the next step is the preparation of the Initial Study; this document will incorporate technical conclusions and recommendations into Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 839, Packet Page 939 G-31
the CEQA analysis. The CEQA Initial Study Checklist will also be circulated for a required 30- day review.

Based on this initial evaluation, and assuming compliance with CEQA analysis above, the Proposed Project may qualify for a Mitigation Negative Declaration. However, this determination can only be made after additional design and technical reports are completed by the City of Monterey as lead agency, as discussed above.

8.1. Aesthetics
Existing Setting
The Monterey Peninsula consists of approximately 10 square miles of coastal lands and forested hills. Much of the City is urbanized; however, its coastline and wooded ridges are devoted primarily to open space and recreational uses. Located an hour away from San Jose and an hour and a half from San Francisco, Monterey is frequently a vacation destination for inland and city residents. The Monterey region is well known for its scenic visual character. The City’s coastal areas provide expansive views of the Pacific Ocean (Monterey Bay). The adjacent beach and coastal bluff areas are visually intriguing and offer a variety of passive and active recreational SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
AESTHETICS – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X
City of Monterey Planning,
Engineering and Environmental
Compliance Division (PEEC),
General Plan Map 2 Showing
Special Places
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Open Space Element Goals
c, d, and h and Policies b.4 and
f.6
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings? Level of Significance to be Determined, see note below.

City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Urban Design Element
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Open Space Element,
Policies a.3 and b.4
City of Monterey City Code,
Chapter 37, Preservation of
Trees
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the
area?
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey PEEC,
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Note: As described in sections c) and d) below, a Landscape Plan and a Lighting Plan will be prepared by the City during the design phase of the proposed project. Upon completion of these documents, the level of significance can be determined.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 840, Packet Page 940 G-32
opportunities. Fisherman’s Wharf and Cannery Row provide a variety of shops, art and craft galleries, boutiques, and restaurants in an historic seaport setting.

As identified in the City’s General Plan, all major roads leading to Monterey are scenic highways.

Highway 1, south of the City, is a State designated scenic highway. State Highway 68 from Highway 1 to the Salinas River is a State and County designated scenic highway. Primary features of the site are shown on Figure 4, Hartnell Gulch Site inventory.

Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan identifies “special places” which are considered to have significant visual resources. The project site is identified as a “canyon special place” in the General Plan. However, the project is proposed, in part, to restore the canyon habitat of the creek, therefore enhancing and maintaining the native vegetation and distinct natural features. Also, a scenic vista is normally defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public for the purposes of CEQA analysis.

Although the area is defined as a special place by the City of Monterey, due to the vegetated nature of the existing site, there does not appear to be a scenic vista associated with the project area.

Based upon the intent of the project for restoration of the area, and the limited scenic vista available at the site due to topography and vegetation, adverse visual impacts to scenic vistas are considered less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The site does not contain any rock outcroppings and is not located within a State scenic highway. The property bordering the project site on the north along Hartnell Street is zoned as a H1 historic building. This building was constructed in 1833 and is locally referred to as the Stokes Adobe. As currently proposed, above ground features would be limited to a pedestrian trail with possible benches and retaining walls if needed and would be designed to blend with the existing environment. This project would have a less than significant effect on scenic resources.
c) Level of Significance to be Determined. The project will require the removal of trees and vegetation that presently contribute to the natural appearance of the area. The removal of these trees and vegetation could degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. More specific information is needed on potential removal of trees and grading that could potentially impact the visual quality of the site. Due to the nature of the project, the design would include replacement and replanting of any removed trees as well as restoration of riparian habitat impacted to mitigate for visual impacts. Therefore, a determination on the level of significance cannot be made without the completion of a Landscape Plan, as described below.

Further documentation is needed to confirm determination that this impact can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

PENDING DESIGN PRODUCT: LANDSCAPE PLAN
During the project design process, the City shall confer with the City Forester to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with Chapter 37 of the Monterey City Code (Tree Preservation Ordinance), which regulates and mitigates the removal of trees. The Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 841, Packet Page 941 G-33
City shall develop an updated Landscape Plan that incorporates recommendations of the City Forester.1
The Landscape Plan should specify that native vegetation, planting and a monitoring program consistent with the Biological Report identified in Section IV, below.

The Landscape Plan will ensure that trees and riparian vegetation removed or lost as a result of construction will be replaced or restored in place and in kind, subject to the requirements of a native plant list to be included in the Biological Report. d) Level of Significance to be Determined. There is currently no proposed Lighting Plan for the proposed project. Typically, similar projects would include installation of small, downwardfacing, light fixtures installed along the pathway. Lighting would need to provide enough illumination required to prevent trip hazards and provide security. The new source of light or glare would likely not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and the potential impact is considered less than significant, however, further design details including a Lighting Plan, as described below will be needed to confirm the determination that this impact can be reduced to less than significant.

PENDING DESIGN PRODUCT: LIGHTING PLAN
During project design, the City shall develop a Lighting Plan for the proposed project. The Lighting Plan will ensure that lighting standards such that all artificial outdoor lighting will be limited to safety and security requirements, designed using Illuminating Engineering Society’s design guidelines, and in compliance with International Dark-Sky Association approved fixtures, are complied with. In addition, the Lighting Plan will include lighting that is designed to have minimum impact on the surrounding environment and will use downcast, cut-off type fixtures that are shielded and direct the light only towards objects requiring illumination for safety and security.
1 A Restoration Plan dated February 4, 2016 was prepared by Ecological Concern, Inc. on behalf of the City of Monterey for the proposed project, it is included as Figure 6 to this Preliminary Environmental Checklist. Since that time, changes have been made to the project design. This Restoration Plan would need to be revised and expanded to meet the requirements of the Landscape Plan described above.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 842, Packet Page 942 G-34

8.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Conservation Element
City of Monterey General Plan
Update Initial Study 2003
City of Monterey Zoning
Ordinance
California Department of
Conservation 2014
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract? X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Conservation Element
City of Monterey General Plan
Update Initial Study 2003
City of Monterey Zoning
Ordinance
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning
of forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 12220g), timberland
(as defined by Public
Resources Code Section
4526) or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code
Section 51104g)?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Conservation Element
d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Conservation Element
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their location
or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Conservation Element
City of Monterey General Plan
Update Initial Study 2003
City of Monterey Zoning
Ordinance
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 843, Packet Page 943 G-35
Existing Setting
While much of Monterey County is known for, and associated with, an abundance of agricultural operations, the City of Monterey itself has no agricultural operations or potential for future agriculture resources or activities. The project site is mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).

The California Department of Conservation, Conservation Program Support also makes prepares maps of the parcels under Williamson Act contract. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract (California Department of Conservation 2016).

Discussion
a-e) No Impact. The project site does not contain any identified agriculture resources, land identified for potential agricultural production, lands zoned for agricultural use, or lands under a Williamson Act contract. Agriculture operations are not an allowable use in the Zoning Code. No forest land or timberland are identified in the City General Plan and the City does not include any forest zoning classifications.

The project involves restoration of riparian area and limited improvements including a trail and runoff diversion within an urban area, which would not remove a barrier to population growth.

Because the project would not induce population growth, the project would not result in an indirect impact from the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur to agriculture resources.

8.3. Air Quality
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Conservation Element,
Policy c.2
2008 Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP) for the Monterey
Bay Region (Monterey Bay
Unified Air Pollution Control
District (MBUAPCD))
2008 CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines (MBUAPCD)
2005 Report on Attainment of
the California Particulate Matter
Standards in the Monterey Bay
Region (MBUAPCD)
b) Violate any air quality
standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality
violation?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Conservation Element Goal
c and Policies c.1–c.3
2008 AQMP for the Monterey
Bay Region (MBUAPCD)
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 844, Packet Page 944 G-36
2008 CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines (MBUAPCD)
2005 Report on Attainment of
the California Particulate Matter
Standards in the Monterey Bay
Region (MBUAPCD)
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing
emissions, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Conservation Element Goal
c and Policies c.1–c.3
2008 AQMP for the Monterey
Bay Region (MBUAPCD)
2008 CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines (MBUAPCD)
2005 Report on Attainment of
the California Particulate Matter
Standards in the Monterey Bay
Region (MBUAPCD)
d) Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
e) Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
Existing Setting
The project area is within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which is comprised of Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey counties. A semi-permanent high-pressure system in the eastern Pacific is the controlling factor of the climate in the air basin. In late spring and summer, the high-pressure system is dominant and causes persistent west and northwesterly winds over the entire California coast. The onshore air currents pass over cool ocean waters to bring fog and relatively cool air into the coastal valleys. Warmer air aloft creates elevated inversions that restrict dilution of pollutants vertically, and mountains forming the valleys restrict dilution horizontally.

In the fall, the surface winds become weak, and the marine layer grows shallow, dissipating altogether on some days. The airflow is occasionally reversed in a weak offshore movement, and the relatively stagnant conditions allow pollutants to accumulate over a period of days. It is during this season that the north or east winds develop that transport pollutants from either the San Francisco Bay Area or the Central Valley into the NCCAB. During winter and early spring, the Pacific high–pressure system migrates southward and has less influence on the air basin. Wind direction is more variable, but northwest winds still dominate. The general absence of deep, persistent inversions and occasional storm passages usually result in good air quality for the basin.

The City of Monterey is bounded by pine-wooded hills to the south and by the crescent-shaped southerly end of the Monterey Bay to the north. Persistent sea breezes ventilate the area with respect to other metropolitan areas, and the City generally enjoys good air quality throughout the year.

The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requires that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for various criteria pollutants. NAAQS defines the maximum amount of an air pollutant that can be present in ambient Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 845, Packet Page 945 G-37
air. A NAAQS is generally specified as a concentration averaged over a specific time period, such as 1-hour, 8-hours, 24-hours, or 1-year. The different averaging times and concentrations are meant to protect against different exposure effects. AAQS established for the protection of human health are referred to as primary standards, while standards established for the prevention of environmental and property damage are called secondary standards. The FCAA allows States to adopt additional or more health-protective standards. The State of California has established air quality standards (CAAQS) for some pollutants not addressed by NAAQS. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has established CAAQS for H2S, SO4 2-, VCM, and visibility reducing
particles.

The ARB designates a status for regional air basins as being in attainment or nonattainment with State air quality standards. The EPA provides the designation for National standards. State designations are reviewed annually while the National designations are reviewed when either the standards change, or when an area requests that they be re-designated due to changes in the area’s air quality. Most designations are made by regional air basin, but in some cases, designations are made at the county level.

Designations are made by pollutant according to the following categories:

Attainment – Air quality in the area meets the standard.

Nonattainment – Air quality in the area fails to the applicable standard.

Unclassified – Insufficient data to designate area, or designations have yet to be made.

Attainment/Unclassified - An EPA designation which, in terms of planning implications, is essentially the same as Attainment.

Nonattainment designations are of most concern because they indicate that unhealthy levels of the pollutant exist in the area, which typically triggers a need to develop a plan to achieve the applicable standard. Current State and National designations are shown below:

Table 3. North Central Coast Air Basin Attainment Status Summary as of January 2015 Pollutant State Standards1 National Standards
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment2 Attainment / Unclassified3
Inhalable Particulates (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Attainment Attainment / Unclassified4 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment / Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment / Unclassified5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment6
Lead Attainment Attainment / Unclassified7
Notes:
1) State designations based on 2010 to 2012 air monitoring data. 2) Effective July 26, 2007, the ARB designated the NCCAB a nonattainment area for the State ozone standard, which was revised in 2006 to include an 8-hour standard of 0.070 ppm.
3) On March 12, 2008, EPA adopted a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. In April 2012, EPA designated the NCCAB attainment/unclassified based on 2009-2011 data.
4) This includes the 2006 24-hour standard of 35 µg/m3 and the 2012 annual standard of 12 µg/m3 . 5) In 2012, EPA designated the entire state as attainment/unclassified for the 2010 NO2 standard. 6) In June 2011, the ARB recommended to EPA that the entire state be designated as attainment for the 2010 primary SO2 standard. Final designations to be addressed in future EPA actions.
7) On October 15, 2008 EPA substantially strengthened the national ambient air quality standard for lead by lowering the level of the primary standard from 1.5 µg/m3 to 0.15 µg/m3 . Final designations were made by EPA in November 2011. 8) Nonattainment designations are highlighted in Bold.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 846, Packet Page 946 G-38
The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. The MBARD, which is overseen by the ARB, has published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that also are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of projects (MBARD, 2008). In an attempt to achieve NAAQS and CAAQS and maintain air quality, the MBUAPCD has most recently completed the 2008 Air Quality Management Plan (2008 AQMP) for achieving the O3 CAAQS and the 2007 Federal Maintenance Plan for Maintaining the National Ozone Standard in the Monterey Bay Region (MBARD, 2007).

Although the North Central Coast Air Basin is in attainment of all federal air quality standards, it is designated as nonattainment with respect to the more stringent state PM10 standard and the state eight-hour ozone standard. See Table 3 for a summary of the North Central Coast Air Basin attainment status.

CEQA Guidelines §15125(b) requires that a project is evaluated for consistency with applicable regional plans, including the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The MBARD is required to update their AQMP once every three years; the most recent update (MBARD, 2017) was approved in March of 2017. This plan addresses attainment of the State ozone standard and federal air quality standard. AQMP accommodates growth by projecting growth in emissions based on population forecasts prepared by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) and other indicators. Consistency determinations are issued for commercial, industrial, residential, and infrastructure related projects that have the potential to induce population growth. A project is considered inconsistent with the AQMP if it has not been accommodated in the forecast projections considered in the AQMP.

Discussion
a) No Impact. A project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP for the Monterey Bay Region if it is inconsistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMPs, in terms of population, employment, or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled. These population forecasts are developed, in part, on data obtained from local jurisdictions and projected land uses and population projections identified in community plans. Projects that result in an increase in population growth that is inconsistent with local community plans would be considered inconsistent with the AQMP. As the proposed project would not affect population growth, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Under the Federal Clean Air Act, the NCCAB is designated for attainment status as shown above in Table 3. The long-term and short-term impacts of the project to air quality are discussed below. Greenhouse gas emissions are discussed in Section VII of this document.

Long-term air emissions impacts are associated with any change in permanent use of the project site by on-site stationary and off-site mobile sources that substantially increase vehicle trip emissions. Construction activities, such as grading and vehicle/equipment use, that would result in air pollutant emissions are considered short-term.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 847, Packet Page 947 G-39
The proposed project would include short-term, temporary impacts to air quality which may occur from the generation of air pollutant emissions during construction. The use of vehicles and heavy equipment as part of construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading and excavation, vegetation removal, dredging, and construction-related vehicle traffic. These activities would be the primary emissions sources at the project site. Dust generated daily during construction would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Vehicles and heavy equipment that may be required for construction and maintenance would not operate continuously, thereby producing intermittent and temporary emissions, depending on the construction duration and schedule. Construction and maintenance activities of the proposed project may also require worker commute trips.

The sources of emissions associated with the proposed project have the potential to generate a small amount of fugitive particles and diesel exhaust that could result in an increase in criteria pollutants during maintenance activities and could also contribute to the existing nonattainment status of the NCCAB for ozone and PM10. As stated in the MBUAPCD 2008 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (Section 5.3), emissions from construction activities represent temporary impacts that are typically short in duration, depending on the size, phasing, and type of project. Air quality impacts can nevertheless be acute during construction periods, resulting in significant localized impacts to air quality. Emissions of concern related to construction and maintenance activities are PM10 and ozone.

As stated above, as the extent and duration of construction and maintenance activities are not defined yet, further environmental analysis will need to be completed to determine the impacts of construction and maintenance on air quality. However, the following provides standards for evaluating significant impact and preliminary assessment based upon level of project details known.

Inhalable Particulates (PM10)
Construction activities (e.g., excavation, grading, on-site vehicles) which directly generate 82 pounds per day or more of PM10 would have a significant impact on local air quality when they are located nearby and upwind of sensitive receptors. If ambient air quality in the project area already exceeds the State AAQS, a project would contribute substantially to this violation if it would emit 82 lb/day or more. As indicated above, assuming the proposed project would not exceed 82 lb/day, this impact is less than significant.

Ozone
Construction activities using typical construction equipment that temporarily emit precursors of ozone (i.e., volatile organic compounds (VOC) or oxides of nitrogen (NOX)) are accommodated in the emissions inventories of State- and federally-required air plans and will have a less than significant impact on the attainment and maintenance of ozone AAQS.

Due to the limited area of construction, earthmoving maintenance activities associated with the proposed project would likely not exceed 2.2 acres per day air quality consistent with Air District standards. Given the limited extent of the work area, and due to the temporary nature of the Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 848, Packet Page 948 G-40
activities, the proposed project is not expected to exceed the impact significance criteria.

Therefore, impacts to air quality will be less than significant.

To further minimize air quality impacts, consistent with guidance from MBARD and City construction standards, the following “Best Management” construction practices shall be implemented at the construction site to control emissions:
• Water all active construction areas as required with non-potable sources to the extent feasible; frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure and minimized to prevent wasteful use of water.
• Prohibit grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph). • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials and require trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard.
• Hand sweep daily within paved areas.
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets;
• Enclose, cover, or water daily exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Provide stabilized construction entrance/exit to limit sediment tracking from the site.

With the implementation of Best Management Practices described above, short-term construction period air quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

Long-term air emissions impacts are associated with any change in permanent use of the project site by on-site stationary and off-site mobile sources that substantially increase vehicle trip emissions. No stationary sources are associated with the project. The project involves restoration of riparian area and limited improvements including a trail and runoff diversion, which once completed, would not generate vehicle or other mobile emissions. Therefore, long-term operation of the project would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. As described above in (b), the project would result in temporary increases in air pollutants (e.g., fugitive dust). However, implementation of Best Management Practices, described above, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, temporary increases in air pollutants would not be cumulatively considerable.
d-e) Less Than Significant Impact. Generally, residences, as well as schools, are considered to be "sensitive receptors" in relation to air quality issues. There are a limited number of residences located along Pacific Street near the project area. Monterey High School facilities are located across Pacific Street near the site. As stated in b-c above, the project, during construction, may generate odors or pollutant concentrations that are objectionable to some persons. Construction activities may expose surrounding land uses to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 849, Packet Page 949 G-41
small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of construction equipment (e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). On a limited basis, sensitive receptors in the vicinity and on-site workers may be exposed to blowing dust, depending on the prevailing wind. However, implementation of the Best Management Practices described above, and the temporary nature of the impacts, would reduce short-term construction period air quality impacts and prevent nuisances to residents and workers. Thus, the impact is less than significant.

8.4. Biological Resources
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Has a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive or special-status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Conservation
Element Goal d, Policies d.1–d-6
and Programs d.1.1–d.6.6
City of Monterey PEEC,
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.),
Chapter 37, Preservation of
Trees and Shrubs
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural
community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the
California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Conservation
Element Policy b.4 and Program
d.6.3
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Conservation
Element Policy b.4 and Program
d.6.3
d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 850, Packet Page 950 G-42
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey PEEC,
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.),
Chapter 37, Preservation of
Trees and Shrubs
City of Monterey, Forest
Management Plan, August 2008
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation
plan?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
Installation-Wide Multispecies
Habitat Management Plan for
Former Fort Ord, California,
1997
City of Monterey General Plan
Update EIR 2004
Note: As described in sections a), b), c), and e) below, a Biological Report, a Wetland Delineation, and a Landscape Plan will be prepared by the City during the design phase of the proposed project. Upon completion of these documents, the level of significance can be determined.

Existing Setting
Monterey County consists of more than 3,324 square miles of land (over two million acres) with a variety of habitats from rocky Pacific shores to open grasslands to high mountains at elevations exceeding 5,000 feet. The Monterey Bay area, located in northern Monterey County, is home to a diverse population of animal, bird, and plant species. The waters of Monterey Bay and the adjacent Pacific Ocean off the central California coast have been designated and protected as the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary since 1992. The climate of the site is typical of the California central coast with mild year-round and morning coastal fog, generally cleared by afternoon breezes. Monterey typically experiences cool summer months, with temperatures averaging in the high 50s to low 60s, and warm "Indian Summer" weather in the fall. The average yearly rainfall is approximately 18 inches and is concentrated in the winter and early spring months.

Monterey Tree Protection Ordinance
Monterey’s image is that of a small-scale residential community beside the bay, framed by a forested hill backdrop and drawing its charm from a rich historical background, certain commercial enterprises, and natural scenic beauty. Trees within the City significantly contribute to this image.

The Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance is intended to assure preservation of trees and replacement of trees that are six inches in diameter or greater when removal is unavoidable. The Ordinance also establishes a Landmark Tree Program.

General Plan Conservation Element
The City’s Conservation Element contains a variety of goals, policies and programs to: protect the character and composition of existing native vegetative communities.

The project site is located within a natural area called Hartnell Gulch, which is surrounded by development. Stormwater runoff drains into a small stream that runs through the center of the Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 851, Packet Page 951 G-43
project site. Vegetation on the project site is “ruderal”, a habitat type dominated by non-native, invasive species due to previous or ongoing disturbance, as shown on Figures 5 and 6. Existing trees and shrubs are proposed to be protected where feasible; these include oak and cypress trees as shown on Figure 5. Figure 6 also identifies the project area plantings and proposed restoration plans (conceptual draft).

Discussion
a) Level of Significance to be Determined. The project site has the potential for candidate, sensitive, special status, or rare and endangered species and marine animals. A determination on the level of significance cannot be made without a Biological Report, as described below. Once this information is available, the determination whether this impact can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation can be made.

PENDING TECHNICAL ANALYSIS: BIOLOGICAL REPORT
A biological survey and report shall be conducted to analyze the potential or candidate, sensitive, special status, or rare and endangered species or marine animals and potential impacts to biological resource impacts based on the operation and construction of the proposed project. The recommendations contained in said report shall incorporated into project construction and design.
b), c) Level of Significance to be Determined. The creek that runs through the project site will be graded and the creek bed will be raised by several feet. Natural drainage channels and wetlands are considered Waters of the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulates the filling or grading of such Waters by authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Additionally, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages according to the provisions of Section 1601 and 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. Impacts to waters of the U.S. are considered potentially significant. A determination on the level of significance cannot be made without a Wetland Delineation, as described below. Riparian areas, wetlands, other waters of the U.S., waters of the state are considered sensitive biological resources that fall under the jurisdiction of the above regulatory agencies. Coordination, the approval of various permits could reduce any potential effects on these habitats. The proposed project may result in potentially significant but mitigatable impacts related to effects on sensitive habitats. Additional environmental analysis is required once the project is further defined to identify and confirm biological resources on the site as well as determine potential impacts and mitigations to reduce the level of biological impacts from the proposed project. After the Wetland Determination is complete, a determination of whether this impact can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation can be made.

PENDING TECHNICAL ANALYSIS: WETLAND DELINEATION
Prior to commencement of construction, the City will conduct a jurisdiction waters delineation to document the extent of potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project area which may be regulated by the ACOE. The delineation report will also contain a determination of the extent of potential impacts to jurisdictional area resulting from project implementation. Pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 852, Packet Page 952 G-44
(NWP) 14; if the discharge causes the loss of less than 1/10-acre to waters of the U.S., no further action is required. If impacts to jurisdictional areas are less than 1/3 acre but greater than 1/10 acre, the City will notify the ACOE District Engineer in accordance with requirements specified in NWP 14. If impacts to jurisdictional areas are greater than 1/3 acre, or if the proposed activity would not otherwise quality for NWP 14, the City will proceed with obtaining an Individual Permit from the ACOE. In addition to Section 404 permit from the ACOE, a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW and a Water Quality Certification (Section 401 of the Clean Water Act) from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board will be obtained.
d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project area has the potential to support avian populations that are protected under both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code Section 3503. Construction-related activities (e.g., trimming and removal of trees and vegetation, and equipment noise, vibration, and lighting) that result in harm, injury, or death of individuals, or abandonment of an active nest would be considered a significant impact. The proposed project site provides potential nesting habitat for protected avian species. If a raptor or other migratory birds were to nest on or adjacent to the site prior to or during proposed construction activities, such activities may result in the abandonment of active nests or direct mortality to these birds. This is considered a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 identified below.

MITIGATION MEASURE 1: CONDUCT PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS FOR

NESTING BIRDS
Construction activities that may affect nesting birds shall be timed to avoid the nesting season. Specifically, tree removal shall be scheduled after September 1 and before February 28. Alternatively, if construction activities or tree removal are to occur during the breeding season (February 28 through September 1), surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction.

If nesting birds are identified during the preconstruction surveys, CDFW shall be contacted and an appropriate buffer shall be imposed within which no construction activities or disturbance shall take place (generally 300 feet in all directions for raptors) until the young of the year have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, as determined by a qualified biologist or CDFG.
e) Level of Significance to be Determined. The project is located within a designated habitat management area according the City of Monterey General Plan Map 9. Additionally, the project will require the removal of trees. The City’s Tree Ordinance defines preservation and replacement of trees that are six inches in diameter or greater when removal is unavoidable. The Ordinance also establishes a Landmark Tree Program. The project will result in the loss of trees and vegetation within a habitat management area. The project is a restoration project and preliminary plans indicate tree removal will be avoided where feasible. Coordination with the City Forester and compliance with the Tree Ordinance will occur through the review and approval of an updated Landscape Plan, as described Section I, above. Therefore, related potential impacts cannot be determined at this time.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 853, Packet Page 953 G-45
f) No Impact. The City does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan that addresses the proposed project site. Therefore, no impact will result.

8.5. Cultural Resources
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource as defined in
15064.5? (Intent is to
address impact to onsite
historic resources and
adjacent historic resources.)
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.),
Chapter 38, Zoning Code,
Article 15 H Historic Overlay
District
City of Monterey PEEC, Historic
Preservation Program
City of Monterey PEEC, Historic
Master Plan
City of Monterey PEEC, Historic
Ordinance
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

Archaeological Sensitivity Map,
Figure 8, Draft EIR, City of
Monterey General Plan Update,
July 2004
c) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic
feature?
X
Archaeological Sensitivity Map,
Figure 8, Draft EIR, City of
Monterey General Plan Update,
July 2004
d) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
Note: As described in section b) below, an Archaeological Survey Report will be prepared by the City during the design phase of the proposed project. Upon completion of this document, the level of significance can be determined.

Existing Setting
According to the City’s General Plan, the City of Monterey is one of the most historic cities in the United States, and preservation of historic resources has long been a concern of Monterey citizens.

Over the past three centuries, the City has served, at various times, as a Spanish mission, a center of government, a major commercial port, and a cultural center. There are numerous historic sites in the City, including two National Historic Landmark Districts. Monterey is recognized as a Preserve America Community and the National Trust designated Monterey as one of its Twelve Distinctive Destinations.

The City of Monterey updated its Historic Preservation Ordinance in March 2000. Historic zoning within the City is defined as follows: Landmark Zoning (H-1) may be applied to properties which meet the National Register criteria defined in National Register Bulletin 15 and the property is the first, last, only, rare, or most significant resource of its type in the region. Notwithstanding the Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 854, Packet Page 954 G-46
foregoing, the H-1 Landmark zoning district may be applied to adobe resources built prior to 1879 and other previously “H” zoned resources as of the date of the ordinance adoption which may not meet National Register integrity standards. City Historic Resource Zoning (H-2) may be applied to properties that meet National Register criteria.

An archaeological report was prepared by Pacific Legacy for the nearby Hartnell Gulch Pedestrian Walkway Project. The report found there were ten recorded cultural resources situated within one quarter-mile including four prehistoric sites. Near to the Hartnell Gulch proposed project area, a substantial 19th and early 20th century historic refuse dump was discovered near the eastern end of Hartnell Gulch. In addition, eleven historic properties have been identified within or near the block in which the project area is situated. (Pacific Legacy Report, October 2008 included as an attachment to the IS/ND for the City of Monterey Hartnell Gulch Pedestrian Walkway Project.) Discussion
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. According to the Archaeological Sensitivity Map, Figure 8 of the Draft General Plan EIR, the project site is in an area of “High Probability of Prehistoric Artifacts.” During project construction archaeological or paleontological resources may be encountered. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Due to the projects location in an archaeological sensitive area, Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 below is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURE 2: VIBRATION MONITORING
To reduce impacts from construction vibration the City shall monitor for vibration during project construction, especially during the use of jackhammers and vibratory rollers, if applicable. If construction vibration levels exceed 0.12 in/sec PPV, construction shall be halted, and other construction methods shall be employed to reduce the vibration levels below the standard threshold. Alternative construction methods may include using concrete saws instead of jackhammers or hoe-rams to open excavation trenches, the use of nonvibratory rollers, and hand excavation. If impact sheet pile installation is needed (i.e., for horizontal directional drilling or jack-and-bore)
MITIGATION MEASURE 3: ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING
A qualified archaeologist shall be retained on site during all excavation work and shall examine all excavations for evidence of any archaeological or paleontological resources.

If any prehistoric subsurface, archaeological features or deposits including locally darkened soil (“midden”), that could conceal cultural deposits, animal bone, obsidian and/or mortar are discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities, all work within 50 meters of the resources shall be halted and the qualified archaeologist shall assess the significance of the find. Archaeological test excavations shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist to aid in determining the nature and integrity of the find. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, then representatives of the City and the qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 855, Packet Page 955 G-47
professional museum curation, and a report shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist according to current professional standards.

If a Native American site is discovered, then the evaluation process shall include consultation with the appropriate Native American(s). When Native American archaeological, ethnographic, or spiritual resources are involved, all identification and treatment shall be conducted by qualified archaeologists who are either certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) or meet the federal standards as stated in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. 61), and Native American representatives who are approved by the local Native American community as scholars of the cultural traditions.

If no such Native American is available, persons who represent tribal governments and/or organizations in the locale in which resources could be affected shall be consulted.

A qualified archaeologist shall be present at the preconstruction meeting to educate all construction workers for the proposed project on the identification of subsurface cultural resources. The preconstruction meeting shall be completed prior to the commencement of any earth work or other construction activities and verification of compliance shall be provided to the City. Each contractor and all employees involved with earth moving activities including, but not limited to grading, scraping, drilling, and trenching, shall be required to participate in this preconstruction meeting. If subsequent contractors are hired who did not participate in this preconstruction meeting, they shall be required by the City to meet independently with the qualified archaeological consultant to review and discuss the potential for discovery of archaeological resources and the proper treatment of these materials to meet the spirit and the intent of this mitigation measure. They too shall provide verification to the City.
b) Level of Significance to be Determined. The property bordering the project site on the north along Hartnell Street is zoned as a H1 historic building. No other identified historic resources are in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Project engineering or project construction details are not fully defined; however, there is the potential for construction activities to either be near historical resources or create vibrations that could have a negative effect on the foundation of the historic structure. A determination on the level of significance cannot be made without the completion of an archaeological report, as described below.

PENDING TECHNICAL ANALYSIS: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT The project proponent shall conduct a preconstruction archaeological survey to ensure no archaeological sites are within the construction area. The site must be inventoried for the presence of archaeological resources. This would include surface examination within the project site. After field studies are completed, an Archaeological Survey Report will be prepared, as appropriate, for documenting the type(s) of resources encountered. c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Impacts to paleontological resources are significant when a project is determined to disturb or destroy scientifically important fossil remains, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Excavations associated with construction of the proposed project could potentially impact such resources. Mitigation is necessary to ensure that Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 856, Packet Page 956 G-48
resources discovered during project construction will be appropriately protected and curated. Due to the projects location in an archaeological sensitive area, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 above will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project could have the potential to disturb undiscovered human remains. While no prehistoric archaeological material has been previously identified, there is a remote possibility human remains could be uncovered during grading, excavation, and other earthmoving activities. If encountered, such resources could be damaged or destroyed. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 below will reduce this impact to a less than significant-level.

MITIGATION MEASURE 4: DISCOVERY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL

RESOURCES OR HUMAN REMAINS
If archaeological resources or human remains are unexpectedly discovered during any construction, work shall be halted within 50 meters (±160 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented, with the concurrence of the Lead Agency (MRWPCA). The County Coroner shall be notified in accordance with provisions of Public Resources Code 5097.98-99 in the event human remains are found and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code section 5097 if the remains are determined to be of Native American origin.

8.6. Geology and Soils
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Expose people or
structures to potential
substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the
area or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication

42. X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Safety Element
Goal a, Policies a.1–a.7
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan, Map 11-Showing
Seismic Hazards
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 857, Packet Page 957 G-49
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Safety Element
Goal a, Policies a.1–a.7
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Safety Element
Goal a, Policies a.1–a.7
iv) Landslides?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Safety Element
Goal a, Policies a.1–a.7
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Safety Element
Policies b.1–b.6
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan, General Plan Map
12-Showing Steep Slopes
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Safety Element
Goal a, Policies a.1–a.7
City of Monterey PEEC
Phillip Williams Associates,
October 1997. Hartnell Gulch:

Watershed Analysis and
Management
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Safety Element
Goal a, Policies a.1–a.7
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan, General Plan Map
12-Showing Steep Slopes
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or
property?
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey PEEC
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
Note: As described in sections b), c), and d) below, an Erosion Control Plan and a Geotechnical Report will be prepared by the City during the design phase of the proposed project. Upon completion of these documents, the level of significance can be determined.

Existing Setting
The City of Monterey is underlain by a major geologic feature, the Salinian Block, which in turn is underlain by granitic basement rock. The Salinian Block is bounded on the northeast by the San Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 858, Packet Page 958 G-50
Andreas Fault and on the southwest by the Palo Colorado-San Gregorio Fault. The block is approximately 50 miles wide and 300 miles long. The types of soils and geologic formations that underlie the City are varied, ranging from unconsolidated dune sands along the Monterey Bay to exposed granite and sandstone. Each has unique characteristics and potential development limitations and erosion characteristics. Generally, the erosion potential of soils and their expansion properties (soil expansion and contraction can result in damage to building foundations, roads, etc.) are of greatest interest from a development impact perspective.

Coastal areas along Monterey Bay, especially dune deposits, are highly susceptible to coastal erosion from waves and tidal events. Erosion potential varies along the length of the coast.

Variability in erosion rates is caused by several factors including sea level, wave patterns influenced by the form of the ocean floor, storm patterns, and the structure and character of dunes in localized areas. Historic average coastal bluff retreat rates have been highest in the former Fort Ord area, averaging up to eight feet per year. Average erosion rates decrease down coast to about three to five feet per year in Sand City. Further south, within the City, average erosion rates are believed to be about one to two feet per year (Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan for Southern Monterey Bay, November, 2008). Coastal erosion would be a significant factor for any development proposed along the margin of Monterey Bay.

California is one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. The City lies adjacent to the boundary zone between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The faults associated with this zone are predominantly northwest-trending strike-slip faults that have a right-lateral slip.

The General Plan identifies three faults that traverse the City, including the Chupines Fault, the Navy Fault, and the Berwick Fault. Information available on the activity of these faults is generally not conclusive, but each is assumed to be potentially active.

Topography and slope within the City is quite variable. Lands along the margin on Monterey Bay tend to be relatively flat but sloped towards the bay. Much of the upland portion of the City is incised by a series of intermittent stream channels that have cut into surface soil and subsurface geologic formations, leaving a series of mesas that trend towards the bay. Much of the City is built on these mesas and on the more level margins of the bay. The northern terminus of the Santa Lucia Mountains is the major regional landform that forms the backdrop to the City. Due to slope and access constraints, development within this area tends to be less dense. Steep slopes within the City tend to be located along stream channels and within the hillside areas.

Discussion
a i-iv) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located within a fault zone but could increase the exposure of people and structures to seismic hazards including strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure. The project is in a seismically active part of California which is subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake and is typically the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground-shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions. Construction will be subject to the California Building Code, which has incorporated Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 859, Packet Page 959 G-51
the most recent seismic design parameters that mitigate the potential for drainage to structures subject to seismic accelerations.

With the requirement that the project is constructed using the standards and requirements of the current applicable codes in place to minimize any geophysical risks associated with construction of the project, and in accordance with the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer, potential impacts associated with the exposure of people or structures to substantial adverse effects of seismic activity or landslides would be considered less than significant. b) Level of Significance to be Determined. The proposed project will restore the creek channel, and in part help mitigate for the increased erosion in the Hartnell Gulch. An erosion study in the Hartnell Gulch watershed identified erosion concerns within the project site. Per the report (Citation below), the Hartnell Street Channel bed in this short reach shows evidence of significant past erosion (the channel is about 16 feet deep) and widening (channel top width is 40 to 50 feet).

However, there was not extensive recent incision, with only a small (2- to 6-foot deep) inner low flow channel, and mature trees within a couple feet of the channel bed. The banks in most of the reach appear moderate (1:1 to 1:5:1 Horizontal to Vertical). However, erosion on the outside of the meander bend appears to represent a potentially severe hazard to the Paseo Zabala building (at the farthest point of the project site downstream; building location is at 550 Hartnell Street). The vertical, 15-foot high bank at this location is only 10 feet from the building.” It is not known if this concern regarding potential for future bank erosion impacting the building foundation at this location has been ameliorated. The recommendations from the report cited a need for “prompt investigation by a geotechnical engineer regarding the specific bank problems in relation to the building foundation… Based on our preliminary observations, some form of bank protection (vegetated rock slope, stepped retaining walls, crib walls, etc.) may be necessary to protect the building from future meander migration/bank erosion…”. (Phillip Williams Associates, October 1997. Hartnell Gulch: Watershed Analysis and Management Recommendations. Prepared for the City of Monterey).

The project site is part of an established natural drainage corridor and disruption of the site may induce soil erosion into the adjacent stream. It is currently unknown whether or not the proposed project will have a significant impact related to soil erosion. An Erosion Control Plan, as described below is required to make this determination.

PENDING DESIGN PRODUCT: EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The City shall prepare and Erosion Control Plan for the proposed project. The plan will include, at a minimum, the installation of “waddles” or other containment devices if the project is to occur between the months of October and April (the normal period of rain), to prevent the immediate erosion of soils on the southern streambank into the adjacent stream.

Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall ensure that the project site is sufficiently secure by planting non-invasive species in those areas disturbed by the construction project c), d) Level of Significance to be Determined. The site-specific geotechnical conditions of the project site are unknown. The Hartnell Gulch location has steep slopes (in excess of 25%) within areas of the creek channel which is highly incised. Due to the unknown project conditions there is Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 860, Packet Page 960 G-52
the potential the project could cause landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. A determination on the level of significance cannot be made without the completion of a Geotechnical Report, as described below. A geotechnical engineering evaluation is needed to review the geotechnical aspects of the project plans and structural calculations, as appropriate to evaluate if they are in general conformance with the intent of the geotechnical conditions on site.

A geotechnical engineer will provide requirements and standards for the geotechnical aspects of construction, particularly grading, footing excavations, subsurface drainage installation, over excavations and placement and compaction of select fill or backfill, and to perform appropriate field and laboratory testing, as applicable. Additionally, the geotechnical report should assess foundations of the building at 550 Hartnell Street would not be impacted by construction.

PENDING TECHNICAL ANALYSIS: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
A geotechnical report shall be prepared to provide specific recommendations for design and construction of the project based on the existing geologic conditions at the project sites.

Construction of the proposed project will be required to adhere to the building and safety requirements in the City’s Building Code as well as the site-specific recommendations in the geotechnical report. The geotechnical report shall be prepared as part of the project design, prior to construction and any recommendations made in the geotechnical report shall be incorporated into project design and construction. e) No Impact. The project does not require a septic system or any other sewer connection. As such, there will be no impact.

8.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
Project Description; California
Air Resources Board;

MBUAPCD
b) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse
gases?
X
Project Description; California
Air Resources Board
Existing Setting
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Scientific modeling predicts Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 861, Packet Page 961 G-53
that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century.

According to the Air Resources Board (ARB), some of the potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (ARB, October 2007).

Potential impacts resulting from flooding caused by sea level rise is addressed in Section IX (Hydrology and Water Quality) below.

The greenhouse effect is a natural process by which some of the radiant heat from the sun is captured in the lower atmosphere of the earth, thus maintaining the temperature and making the earth habitable. The gases that help capture the heat are called greenhouse gases. Some GHGs occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases as describe below:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned. • Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil.

Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic waste in solid waste landfills and from the raising of livestock.
• Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.
• High global warning potential (GWP) gases that are not naturally occurring, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), are generated in a variety of industrial processes.

Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. High GWP gases such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs 310 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weight each gas by its GWP.

Projects which are not consistent with the AQMP, described in more detail in Section III (Air Quality), have not been accommodated in the AQMP and will have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality unless emissions are totally offset. A project that is inconsistent with the AQMP has not been accommodated in the emissions budget and will have a significant cumulative impact on attainment of the state’s ozone ambient air quality standards (AAQS) unless project emissions are totally offset.

Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve creek restoration and water diversion. Therefore, the project will not generate new vehicle trips or otherwise generate a new permanent stationary or mobile source of greenhouse gas emissions from operations. The proposed project would include an undefined number of construction truck trips during construction and would generate GHG emissions during construction. Operations of the proposed Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 862, Packet Page 962 G-54
project, which includes infrastructure and landscape improvements to the site, would not result in the generation of additional GHG emissions. Therefore, a net increase in GHG emissions during the operational phase is not anticipated. An unquantified amount of emissions will result from construction activities; however, more detailed construction information is needed to assess the proposed project’s contribution of GHG emissions during construction. Construction will be contained to the project site and construction GHG emission levels would be anticipated to be below the thresholds of significance; therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant. This issue will require further analysis to confirm this preliminary conclusion once details are available.
b) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, since the proposed project will not substantially increase GHG emissions, therefore the project would not result in an impact related to conflicts with applicable plans.

8.8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Safety Element Goal G
b) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
d) Be located on a site which
is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
California Department of Toxic
Substances, EnviroStor Database
City of Monterey Fire
Department
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 863, Packet Page 963 G-55
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
e) For a project located
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
f) For a project within the
vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a
safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
g) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Safety Element Goal h and
Policies h.1–h-6
City of Monterey Police and Fire
Departments
h) Expose people or
structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized
areas or when residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
X
California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection,
Monterey County Natural
Hazard Disclosure (Fire) map
http://www.fire.ca.gov/ab6/nhd2

7.pdf
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.),
Chapter 13, Fire Protection
General Plan Map 14, Showing
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Existing Setting
The setting information provided below is based on information from the City’s General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Hazardous Materials
In terms of hazardous materials usage, many types of hazardous wastes are used throughout the City in residential, commercial, and industrial applications. The Monterey County Environmental Health Division is responsible for managing the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials in amounts over a specific threshold (the threshold varies among uses and types of materials). The Environmental Health Division keeps an inventory of hazardous materials users and is responsible for working with users to develop plans that ensure the materials are safely used, stored, transported, and disposed.

Fire
Fire hazards can generally be divided into two main types: (1) fires within urban areas that primarily involve specific sites and structures; and (2) fires within undeveloped or minimally Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 864, Packet Page 964 G-56
developed areas, commonly called wildland fires. Most of the land within the present city limits is developed with urban uses. The City of Monterey Fire Department responds to both structure and wildland fires within the City. The City of Monterey Fire Department maintains three stations and operates several fire prevention programs. If the City does not have the capacity to safely handle a structural or wildland fire, it can request additional firefighting resources through the Monterey County Mutual Aid Plan. The Monterey County Mutual Aid Plan enables any jurisdiction that participates in the plan to receive support from fire protection services of other jurisdictions that participate in implementing the plan. Response times to nearly all areas of the City are within the Department’s recommended range of five to seven minutes. Response time to Ryan Ranch is on the threshold of being longer than seven minutes.

The Monterey City Code (M.C.C.) Chapter 13, Fire Protection, adopted the 2007 California Fire Code pursuant to Monterey City Ordinance No. 3398 (effective January 1, 2008). Amendments to this chapter of the code, as well as amendments to the City’s General Plan Map 14, Showing Fire Hazard Severity Zones, were adopted by the City Council on June 2, 2009, to be in compliance with legislation (Government Code Section 51175). This legislation calls for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Director to evaluate fire hazard severity in Local Responsibility Areas and make a recommendation to the local jurisdiction when the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) exists. Based on the findings of the CAL FIRE Director, there are both High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within the City of Monterey City limits (See Map 14 at the City’s website:
http://www.monterey.org/fire/news/fhszforgenplanmap090428.pdf) Airport Safety
Monterey Peninsula Airport operations have the potential to create safety issues related to safe operation of approaching and departing aircraft. The Monterey Peninsula Airport District’s 1992 Monterey Peninsula Airport Master Plan Update shows “runway protection zones” at each end of the main airport runway. These zones are areas 2,500 feet wide and 5,000 feet long. Within these areas, land use controls are exercised to minimize potential safety conflicts with activities that take place within the zones. Such controls and guidelines include the prohibition or limitation of uses that involve large assemblages of people, limitations on building heights and heights of other potential obstructions, and prohibition of new structures. Existing land uses that are within the western approach safety zone include much of the U.S. Navy Golf Course, the Monterey County Fairgrounds, and a small section of residential development. Uses within the eastern protection zone include commercial and residential development at the Highway 218/Highway 68 intersection. Smaller additional safety areas extend beyond the primary protection zone wherein specific development standards apply to minimize conflicts with airport operations.

Emergency Preparedness/Emergency Response
The City of Monterey Fire Department and City of Monterey Police Department coordinate emergency response within the City. The City operates its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as the center of emergency response coordination and actions. During an emergency, all response activities are managed by the EOC, including information, equipment, volunteers, and other Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 865, Packet Page 965 G-57
resources. Plans for responses to emergency situations are formulated by fire and police officials, and actions to implement those plans are communicated to emergency response teams that operate out of the EOC and throughout the City. The City also operates the Citizens Emergency Response Training (CERT). The main goal of the CERT program is to help the citizens of Monterey to be self-sufficient in a major disaster by developing multifunctional teams that are cross-trained in basic skills. The City’s emergency response efforts are coordinated under the broader umbrella of the State of California Office of Emergency Services. The County of Monterey also has an emergency response office, but the City is not a participating jurisdiction in the County’s response program. The County Environmental Health Division Hazardous Materials Branch and the City of Seaside Hazardous Materials Team would likely be the first agencies to provide support to the City in the event that the City does not have the capacity or capability to fully address a hazard.

Both agencies are fully trained and equipped to respond to a variety of hazardous materials related incidents.

Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction equipment would require the use of petroleum products. Except for the materials required to operate the construction equipment, no other storage, use, transport, or disposal of any hazardous materials would be required. The proposed project will comply with all pollution and environmental control rules, regulations, ordinances, and statutes that apply to the project. As such, this potential impact is considered less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities have the potential to release petroleum products and other substances into the environment. These materials will be stored properly within the staging area, in accordance with BMPs and applicable regulations, and the staging area will be secured from public access and identified per City requirements. Runoff controls will be implemented to prevent water quality impacts, and a spill plan will be developed to address any accidental spills. Any waste products resulting from construction operations will be stored, handled, and recycled or disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local laws, including any wood that has been treated with potentially hazardous preservation chemicals. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Multiple schools are located within one-quarter mile of the project site. As indicated above, the proposed project will comply with all pollution and environmental control rules, regulations, ordinances, and statutes that apply to the project. As such, this potential impact is considered less than significant. d) No Impact. The project site is not included on the Cortese list of hazardous sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. e-f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within two miles of the Monterey Peninsula Airport. However, the project will not create a safety hazard due to its height, location and function. This impact will be less than significant. g) Less Than Significant Impact. Pacific Street which borders the site is identified as an access road to Hwy 1 evacuation route. The proposed project would not result in any conditions that are Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 866, Packet Page 966 G-58
not already assumed in the emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact.
h) No Impact. The proposed project will not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fire hazards. While the General Plan Map 14 shows that there are both High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within the City of Monterey City limits, the project site is not within either of these zones. In addition, the Monterey City Code (M.C.C.) Chapter 13, Fire Protection, adopted the 2007 California Fire Code pursuant to Monterey City Ordinance No. 3398 (effective January 1, 2008). Therefore, no impacts regarding wildland fire are anticipated.

8.9. Hydrology and Water Quality
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 31.5, Stormwater
Management
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Public Facilities Element
Policy 1.2
City of Monterey Plans & Public
Works Department
Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Monterey Regional Stormwater
Management Program
(MRSWMP)
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would
drop to a level which would
not support existing land
uses or planned uses for
which permits have been
granted)?
X
City of Monterey Plans & Public
Works Department
Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Conservation Element
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in
a manner which would result
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 31.5, Stormwater
Management
General Plan Public Facilities
Element Policy l.2
City of Monterey Plans & Public
Works Department
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 867, Packet Page 967 G-59
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff
in a manner, which would
result in flooding on- or offsite?
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 31.5, Stormwater
Management
General Plan Public Facilities
Element Policy l.2
City of Monterey Plans & Public
Works Department
e) Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff?
X
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 31.5, Stormwater
Management
General Plan Public Facilities
Element Policy l.2
City of Monterey Plans & Public
Works Department
Monterey Regional Stormwater
Management Program
(MRSWMP)
f) Otherwise substantially
degrade water quality?
X
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 31.5, Stormwater
Management
General Plan Public Facilities
Element Policy l.2
City of Monterey Plans & Public
Works Department
Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Monterey Regional Stormwater
Management Program
(MRSWMP)
g) Place housing within a
100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation
map?
X
General Plan Map 13-Showing
Flood Zones
General Plan Safety Element
Program c.1.a
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 9, Building Regulations,
Article 7, Flood Damage
Prevention
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate
Maps for County of Monterey,
City of Monterey, April 2, 2009
h) Place within a 100-year
flood hazard area structure,
which would impede or
redirect flood flows? X
General Plan Map 13-Showing
Flood Zones
General Plan Safety Element
Program c.1.a
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 9, Building Regulations,
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 868, Packet Page 968 G-60
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
Article 7, Flood Damage
Prevention
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate
Maps for County of Monterey,
City of Monterey, April 2, 2009
i) Expose people or
structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
X
General Plan Safety Element
Policy c.1
City of Monterey Plans & Public
Works Department
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate
Maps for County of Monterey,
City of Monterey, April 2, 2009
j) Cause inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X General Plan Safety Element Policy c.1 Note: As described in sections c) and d) below, a Hydrological Report will be prepared by the City during the design phase of the proposed project. Upon completion of this document, the level of significance can be determined.

Existing Setting
The setting information provided below is based on information provided in the City’s General Plan and General Plan EIR.

Drainage Patterns
The City owns and maintains a storm drainage system that collects and transports stormwater to the Monterey Bay. The system includes over 10 miles of pipelines and drainage channels.

Stormwater runoff is collected through catch basins and stormwater inlets that direct runoff into the pipelines and channels. A series of stormwater outfalls are located along the margin of the Bay through which stormwater is discharged.

Flooding
Areas of the City of Monterey are in 100-year and 500-year flood zones, as shown on Map 13- Showing Flood Zones of the General Plan and FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Monterey County (April 2009), and are subject to significant storm wave inundation that causes erosion of coastal bluffs and potential damage to property. Because California and the west coast of the United States are seismically active, the site is also subject to flood hazard from tsunamis, or seismic sea waves, which are generated by submarine earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and landslides. California has numerous potentially active submarine faults offshore and therefore is at risk for a tsunami. Section VI, Geology and Soils, of this Initial Study provides a comprehensive discussion regarding coastal flooding, wave action, storm surge and seismic effects, and related issues.

Water Quality and Stormwater Regulation
The City maintains approximately 10 miles of storm drainage infrastructure – drainage channels, storm drains, pipelines, culverts, pump stations, and outfalls - within the City of Monterey. The Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 869, Packet Page 969 G-61
existing drainage system collects non-point surface water runoff and conveys it through channels, pipelines, and culverts that, in most instances, eventually terminate at the Monterey Bay.

Monterey’s stormwater collection system is not tied into the sanitary sewer collection system.

Therefore, stormwater flows are, for the most part, not treated prior discharge. Stormwater flows are discharged to local waterways including the Monterey Bay at multiple drainage outfalls located throughout Monterey’s coastal area.

Monterey’s discharge of stormwater to local surface waters is regulated by the federal Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program, and the California Porter-Cologne Act, and permitted through the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City stormwater permit and ordinance require local regulation of water pollution and prevention through the mandated implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to protect the water quality of local waterways.

To address regional urban runoff issues and develop innovative approaches to stormwater management, the City collaborates with other local permittees in the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program (MRSWMP). The MRSWMP is a regional stormwater management, implementation, and education program that assists the City and region with permit compliance. By Ordinance and permit implementation, the City regulates applicable new and redevelopment projects for stormwater control; construction activities for erosion, sediment, and discharge control; identifies and enforces illicit connections and illicit discharges; and implements good housekeeping practices for municipal operations to protect local water quality, including the protections identified below:

Section 31.5-18. Watercourse Protection, City of Monterey (a) Every person or entity owning property through which a watercourse passes, or such owner’s lessee, shall keep and maintain that part of the watercourse within the property reasonably free of trash, debris, excessive vegetation, and other obstacles that would pollute, contaminate, or significantly retard the flow of water through the watercourse. In addition, the owner or lessee shall maintain existing privately-owned structures within or adjacent to a watercourse, so that such structures will not become a hazard to the use, function, or physical integrity of the watercourse.

The owner or lessee shall not remove healthy bank vegetation beyond that actually necessary for maintenance or remove said vegetation in such a manner as to increase the vulnerability of the watercourse to erosion. The property owner or such owner’s lessee shall be responsible for maintaining and stabilizing that portion of the watercourse that is within their property lines in order to protect against erosion and degradation of the watercourse originating or contributed from their property.
(b) Watercourse protection shall be identified in the development planning stage of real property by the person or entity owning the property through which a watercourse passes, in order to retain creeks, wetlands, and riparian areas that provide habitat, and to remediate degraded water quality.

Such considerations include, but are not limited to, preservation and setbacks from creeks, wetlands, and riparian habitats in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulatory permit authorities, such as U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Board, SWRCB, Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 870, Packet Page 970 G-62
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and in conformance with low impact development site assessment and design standards of the NPDES General Permit and Regional Board Resolution No. R3-2013-0032, and as amended thereto. (Ord. 3519 § 7, 2015) Discussion
a, f) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project would disrupt the existing stream channel in Hartnell Gulch and potentially generate unacceptable rates of erosion into the stream during construction. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 below would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURE 5: CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REQUIREMENT The applicant shall require the following provision in any contract related to this project:

The Contractor shall comply with all air pollution and environmental control rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes which apply to the project and any work performed pursuant to the contract. City Code Chapter 31.5 states, “No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the municipal storm drain system or watercourses any materials, including but not limited to pollutants or waters containing any pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards, other than stormwater.” This water quality protection clause means that nothing, but clean water shall enter the storm drain system. All persons conducting construction activities shall employ erosion prevention and construction site management practices which ensure the following outcomes:
o No deposit or discharge of sediment from a site onto adjacent properties or into waterways and related natural resources in excess of those that occur through natural processes;
o No deposit of mud, soil, sediment, concrete washout, trash, or other similar construction-related material onto public rights-of-way and private streets, and into the City's stormwater system and related natural resources, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge, erosion, or tracking by construction vehicles, in excess of those that occur through natural processes. Any such discharge shall be cleaned up at the end of the current work shift in which the deposit occurred, or at the end of the current work day, whichever comes first;
o No exposure of soils and stockpile areas to stormwater runoff without secondary containment and treatment measures;
o No discharge of runoff containing construction-related contaminants into the City's stormwater system or related natural resources; and,
o No release onto the site of hazardous substances, such as oils, paints, thinners, fuels and other chemicals.

Typical minimum measures that a contractor would be expected to take include: spill prevention and control measures; solid waste containment; concrete waste management; proper vehicle and equipment cleaning, fueling, and maintenance; and erosion control Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 871, Packet Page 971 G-63
measures. Detailed procedures for each of these activities can be found in the California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks or the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbooks, both of which are available for reference in the City of Monterey Public Works Office at City Hall.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not affect groundwater or interfere significantly with groundwater recharge, as the project area does not overly a groundwater basin.

The project site is in the Hartnell Gulch watershed. The two primary creek channels in the watershed flow into the storm drain system directly downstream of the project area, where it is piped to the discharge point in Monterey Bay. Construction of the diversion may require temporary dewatering during construction and shallow groundwater may be encountered.

Dewatering activities during construction will be temporary and limited to the proposed project construction site. Dewatering activities will not affect the local aquifers, as those aquifers are substantially below the ground surface. Construction of the proposed project will not increase the amount of impermeable surface area in the project area and will not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the proposed project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Hartnell Gulch is not considered a resource for groundwater supply or recharge and dewatering of the downstream system would be considered a less than significant impact. c), d) Level of Significance to be Determined. The proposed project includes creek restoration and dry weather flow diversion to sanitary sewer as shown on Figure 2. The proposed project will restore the creek channel, and in part help mitigate for the past erosion in the Hartnell Gulch. An erosion study in the Hartnell Gulch watershed identified erosion concerns in the area of the project site. Per the report (Citation below), the Hartnell Street Channel bed in this short reach shows evidence of significant past erosion (the channel is about 16 feet deep) and widening (channel top width is 40 to 50 feet), which is the impetus for this project. Operation of the proposed project will alter drainage patterns during the dry weather season (April – October). Creek flows will be captured and diverted to the sanitary sewer system for treatment and eventual reuse. Additionally, the creek bed elevation will be raised to provide aesthetic benefits, including the possibility of increasing public access with construction of a pedestrian walkway alongside the creek bank. As such, the proposed project would change the existing flow patterns in the creek. Although the intention of the project is to repair existing channel erosion and to prevent further erosion in the future, at this time, it is unknown if this change in the drainage pattern would result in erosion and/or surface runoff. A determination on the level of significance cannot be made without additional bed and bank stabilization and diversion structural design information, analysis and documentation.

PENDING TECHNICAL ANALYSIS: HYDROLOGICAL REPORT
The project proponent will conduct hydrologic analyses as part of final project design. The analysis will include, at a minimum: an assessment of the existing stream flows; effects of raising the creek bed elevation; downstream effects of diversion, such as potential changes to the natural or historic flow regime, biological resources, and channel morphology; and Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 872, Packet Page 972 G-64
further refinement of the bed and bank stabilization and and dry weather flows diverted into the sanitary sewer. The results of this analysis will be compiled into a report or technical memorandum which makes conclusions on hydrologic impacts based on the existing setting and includes recommendations to minimize impacts, if necessary. The hydrologic report will be used to support other technical studies prepared for this project. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage system. The proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project will decrease the amount of urban runoff discharged to the Monterey Bay. Therefore, the proposed project would not provide any additional source of polluted runoff. The impact of the proposed project would be less than significant.
g-j) No Impact. The proposed project does not include housing and is not located within a 100- year flood area. Furthermore, the project site is not located in an area influenced by levees or dams or prone to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, no impacts related to these topics are anticipated.

8.10. Land Use and Planning
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community? X City of Monterey PEEC
b) Conflict with any
applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but
not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan and Area Plans
City of Monterey Local Coastal
Program
City of Monterey PEEC,
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 38, Zoning Ordinance
California Coastal Act
c) Conflict with any
applicable habitat
conservation or natural
community conservation
plan?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
Existing Setting
The City of Monterey is a small-scale community that is largely residential and visitor serving in nature. The majority of land in the City already contains some development. Primary land uses include residential development at low to moderate density and visitor-serving, professional office, Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 873, Packet Page 973 G-65
and retail commercial uses. A number of small, vacant parcels do exist within the City. Most are designated for single-family residential development.

The Hartnell Gulch area is on the southern border of the City’s Old Town Neighborhood, which occupies 170 acres on the hillside above downtown Monterey. The neighborhood consists of a residential core, with the Defense Language Institute as the northern and western boundary, the downtown as the eastern boundary, and Hartnell Gulch, Monterey Library, and nearby Monterey High School as the southern boundary. To the north of the project site, on the hillside above the site, the land uses are primarily within a residential core area. Nearby uses include institutional and non-residential development. The project site is near the Downtown area and the Hartnell Gulch provides a pedestrian access to the downtown.

Land development proposals that fall within the Coastal Zone in the City must obtain development review and approval by the California Coastal Commission in addition to necessary City approvals. California has no designated Coastal Barrier Resources System per the federal Coastal Barriers Resources Act.

Discussion
a-c) No Impact. The proposed project will improve pedestrian connectivity between Pacific Street and Hartnell Street by improving the conditions along the existing path. It will not divide an established community or conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation. The site is located outside of the coast zone and there are no habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans affecting the site. As such, there will be no impact.

8.11. Mineral Resources
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Conservation Element
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Initial Study, Page 11
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Conservation Element
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Initial Study, Page 11
Existing Setting
While there are, at present, small-scale mineral extraction operations around the City of Monterey, limited to commercial sand removal operations in the Sand City/Marina area, there are no mineral resources within the City of Monterey city limits.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 874, Packet Page 974 G-66
Discussion
a-b) No Impact. No mineral resources exist within the project site and no impacts are anticipated.

8.12. Noise
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Noise Element
goals, policies, and programs
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Noise Element
goals, policies, and programs
c) A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without
the project?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Noise Element
goals, policies, and programs
d) A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Noise Element
goals, policies, and programs
e) For a project located
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would
the project expose people
residing or working in the
project area to excessive
noise levels?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Noise Element
Policies b.1–b-5
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Map 17-Showing
Airport Noise Contours
Monterey Peninsula Airport, 14
CFR Part 150 Airport Noise
Exposure Map Update, Exhibits
4B-4D (April 2008)
f) For a project within the
vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose
people residing or working
in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
Existing Setting
The major noise sources affecting the City of Monterey include motor vehicles (autos, trucks, buses, motorcycles) and aircraft. Motor vehicles and aircraft continued to be the primary noise sources in 2003. No stationary source, such as an industrial plant, is known to create noise at an unacceptable level.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 875, Packet Page 975 G-67
The existing noise environment in the project vicinity is dominated by traffic noise on Pacific Street, Hartnell Street and other nearby streets, as well as nearby commercial and civic activities.

Discussion
a), b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The closest sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project sites include residences, schools, and parks and playgrounds. The proposed project will result in temporary increased noise levels that may be considered unpleasant.

Construction noise is a temporary noise source that is generated from a variety of construction activities that occur both on-site and off-site. Although the extent of construction is still not defined, generally, construction equipment that may be used to complete maintenance activities can generate noise levels in the range of 70 to 90 decibels at a distance of 50 feet. Existing sensitive uses within the vicinity of the proposed project sites could experience temporary elevated noise levels during construction activities. Although these noise and vibration sources would be temporary as the equipment and construction vehicles would operate intermittently over the duration of the proposed project, these are potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to a less than significant level by the Mitigation Measure 6 identified below.

MITIGATION MEASURE 6: NOISE REDUCTION
Construction will be limited to weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. During construction, the project contractor shall implement the following measures to minimize construction noise impacts:
o Place construction equipment and equipment staging areas to be located at the furthest distance as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. o Choose construction equipment that is of quiet design, has a high-quality muffler system, and is well-maintained.
o Install superior intake and exhaust mufflers and engine enclosure panels wherever possible on gas diesel or pneumatic impact machines.
o Limit construction to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Saturday.
o Eliminate unnecessary idling of machines when not in use. o Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as portable power generators, as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. o Utilize the quickest equipment options to accomplish the tasks, in accordance with local, state, and federal regulatory requirements.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the project vicinity. Operation of the proposed project will generate minimal vehicle trips.

The noise that is anticipated to occur from operation of the proposed project will be nominal and consisting of vehicle-related mobile sources during inspection and repair activities. Therefore, noise impacts will be less than significant.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 876, Packet Page 976 G-68
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in limited and short-term construction noise. Noise from construction will be in conformance with the City Noise Ordinance. The operation of the proposed project will not generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes creek restoration and dry weather flow diversion to sanitary sewer. While the site is within two miles of a public airport, the site would retain its current uses and the nature of the proposed project itself would not cause people to be exposed to excessive noise levels. Therefore, the impacts are considered less than significant. f) No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would result.

8.13. Population and Housing
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension
of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction
of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan
c) Displace substantial
numbers of people,
necessitating the construction
of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan
Existing Setting
The total population of Monterey in 2016 was 28,454, showing a 3.5% increase in total population from 2010 when the population was at 27,492. According to the 2009 - 2014 General Plan Housing Element, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) identified a future housing need in Monterey of 657 new dwelling units for the period of 2007 - 2014. The City’s General Plan is required to show adequate sites for the 657 units to be in compliance with state law requirements. The City's goal is to provide this housing in the proposed Mixed-Use Neighborhoods, which can accommodate higher-density housing due to transit, recreation, and commercial opportunities.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 877, Packet Page 977 G-69
Discussion
a-c) No Impact. The proposed project includes creek restoration and dry weather flow diversion to sanitary sewer and will not affect population numbers, induce growth or displace residents. As such, there will be no impact.

8.14. Public Services
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project result in 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 any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Public Facilities
Element Goal c, Policies c.1–c.5
City of Monterey Fire
Department
b) Police protection?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Public Facilities
Element Goal b, Policies b.1–b.3
City of Monterey Police
Department
Project Plans
c) Schools?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Public Facilities
Element Goal d, Policies d.1–d.6
Monterey Peninsula Unified
School District
d) Parks?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Public Facilities
Element Goal j, Policies j.1–j.6
City of Monterey Recreation &
Community Services
Department
City of Monterey Maintenance
Division-Parks & Beaches
e) Other public facilities?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Public Facilities
Element Goals a, e, f–i, k–p ;
Policies f.1–f.7, i.1–i.3, k.1–p.2 ;
Programs m.1.1–m.2.1
City of Monterey Public Works
Department
City of Monterey Maintenance
Division-Streets & Utilities
City of Monterey Recreation and
Community Services
Department
City of Monterey Office of the
Harbormaster
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 878, Packet Page 978 G-70
Existing Setting
The major public facilities in the City of Monterey are police and fire, park and recreation facilities, schools, military, cultural, conference center, health care, civic center, cemeteries, harbor, sewage treatment, storm drain system, water supply, and reduction and recycling of waste.

Discussion
a-e) No Impact. The proposed project would involve creek restoration and dry weather flow diversion to sanitary sewer and would not result in an increased demand on fire or police protection, schools, or other public facilities. As a result, there will be no impact.

8.15. Recreation
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION

RECREATION
a) Would the project increase
the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Public Facilities Element
Goal j, Policies j.1–j.6
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 38, Zoning Ordinance,
Article 9, Open Space District
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 33, Subdivision, Article
3, §33-29(c) Park and Recreation
dedication and fees
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have
an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
City of Monterey Recreation and
Community Services Department
Existing Setting
The City of Monterey Recreation and Community Services Department manages a wide range of park and recreation facilities. The Open Space Element provides background information and goals and policies regarding the City’s open space and park resources implemented by the Parks Master Plan. Significant recreation facilities include the Monterey Sports Center, community centers, neighborhood park facilities, and beach parks. Neighborhood parks also include various athletic fields, tennis courts, and other park facilities.

Discussion
a–b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of creek restoration and dry weather flow diversion to sanitary sewer and includes aesthetic improvements to an existing path that connects Pacific Street to Hartnell Street, which may be considered a City recreation facility.

While the project constitutes an improvement to a recreation facility, use of this facility may Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 879, Packet Page 979 G-71
increase. However, physical deterioration of the facility is not expected beyond normal wear and tear. No further expansion of recreational facilities will be required. Therefore, the potential impact of parks and recreation facilities is considered less than significant.

8.16. Transportation and Traffic
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project:
a) Conflict with an
applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures
of effectiveness for the
performance of the
circulation system, taking
into account all modes of
transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant
components of the
circulations system,
including but not limited to
intersections, streets,
highways, and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
X
City of Monterey Plans & Public
Works Department, Traffic
Engineering Division
b) Conflict with an
applicable congestion
management program,
including, but not limited to
level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or
other standard established by
the county congestion
management agency for
designated roads or
highways?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan Circulation
Element Program j.1.1
City of Monterey Plans & Public
Works Department, Traffic
Engineering Division
c) Result in a change in air
traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location
that result in substantial
safety risks?
X
Monterey Peninsula Airport
District
d) Substantially increase
hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan, Circulation
Element
City of Monterey Plans & Public
Works Department, Traffic
Engineering Division
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and
Traffic, Chapter 33,
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 880, Packet Page 980 G-72
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
Subdivisions, Article 3, several
sections related to circulation
e) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan, Circulation
Element
City of Monterey Fire and Police
Departments
f) Conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
X
City of Monterey PEEC,
General Plan, Circulation
Element
Existing Setting
The setting information provided below is based on information provided in the City’s General Plan and General Plan EIR.

Roadway Classification
The City has a roadway classification system, which includes freeways, major arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local streets.

Transit Service
The Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) is the principal transit service for the City of Monterey and the surrounding communities. MST is a joint powers agency with a board of directors that includes a representative from the City of Monterey. Thirteen MST routes currently serve the citizens of the community. The Simoneau Plaza located in downtown Monterey is the transfer center for all routes serving the City. Senior and disabled citizens can use the MST fixedroute and Direct Area Response Transit (DART). MST also operates the RIDES program for disabled citizens.

Existing Bikeway and Pedestrian Facilities
The City of Monterey maintains an extensive network of Class 1, 2, and 3 bicycle paths and pedestrian sidewalks. The most notable bicycle and pedestrian path is the City’s Recreational Trail that is located along the coastal side of the City. The Recreational Trail is a dual use facility that offers people destination opportunities, such as the restaurants or retail stores along Cannery Row or Fisherman’s Wharf, or one of many parks for relaxing or wildlife viewing and sightseeing. The City maintains sidewalks on almost all City roadways, and some roadways have bicycle lanes.

Discussion
a-f) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any transportation performance plans, ordinances, or policies or applicable congestion management program as it will not.

Presently, there is an unimproved pathway that links Pacific Street to Hartnell Street, the proposed project includes upgrades to this pathway. The project will not affect air traffic patterns or Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 881, Packet Page 981 G-73
emergency access and is consistent with all adopted policies that support alternative transportation.

Therefore, there will be no impact on transportation/traffic.

8.17. Tribal Cultural Resources
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historic
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k) or
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey PEEC,
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.),
Chapter 38, Zoning Code,
Article 15 H Historic Overlay
District
City of Monterey PEEC, Historic
Preservation Program
City of Monterey PEEC, Historic
Master Plan
City of Monterey PEEC, Historic
Ordinance
b) A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of
the resource to a California
Native American tribe.

Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey PEEC,
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.),
Chapter 38, Zoning Code,
Article 15 H Historic Overlay
District
City of Monterey PEEC, Historic
Preservation Program
City of Monterey PEEC, Historic
Master Plan
City of Monterey PEEC, Historic
Ordinance
Note: As described in sections a) and b) below, a Archeological Report and Tribal Consultation will be completed by the City during the design phase of the proposed project. Upon completion of these, the level of significance can be determined.

Existing Setting
Archaeological evidence and radiocarbon dates establish human occupation of the California coast dating back at least 10,000 years. Evidence from coastal areas of Monterey County suggests settlement of this area by at least 7,000 years ago and possibly earlier (Jones & Stokes, 2006). The project area lies within the currently recognized ethnographic territory of the Costanoan (Ohlone) linguistic group. Historically, the Ohlone were called the Costanoan Indians. Costanoan is the name assigned to the group by the Spaniards and is derived from the word costaños, meaning “people of the coast;” the term Ohlone is referred by the group themselves (Jones & Stokes, 2006).

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 882, Packet Page 982 G-74
The Ohlone are believed to have inhabited the area 1,500 years ago, and their territory extended along the coast from San Francisco Bay in the north to just beyond Carmel in the south, and as much as 60 miles inland. The Ohlone are a linguistically defined group speaking eight different yet related languages and composed of several autonomous tribelets (Jones & Stokes, 2006). The Monterey Peninsula and the current location of the former Fort Ord were inhabited by the Rumsen group of Ohlone Indians; the Rumsen territory encompassed the Carmel River Valley and the Monterey Peninsula (Jones & Stokes, 2006).

In brief, the Ohlone followed a general hunting and gathering subsistence pattern with partial dependence on the natural acorn crop. Habitation is considered to have been semisedentary, and occupation sites can be expected most often at the confluence of streams, other areas of similar topography along streams, or in the vicinity of springs, although the original sources of water may no longer be present or adequate. Also, resource gathering and processing areas and associated temporary campsites are frequently found on the coast and in other locations containing resources utilized by the group. Factors that influence the location of these sites include the presence of suitable exposures of rock for bedrock mortars or other milling activities, the presence of specific resources (oak groves, marshes, quarries, game trails, trade routes, etc.), proximity to water, and the availability of shelter. Temporary camps or other activity areas can also be found along ridges or other travel corridors (Archaeological Consulting, 2014).

Discussion
a) Level of Significance to be Determined. As described above in the Cultural Resources Section, the property bordering the project site on the north along Hartnell Street is zoned as a H1 historic building. The project site is located within an area of high archeological sensitivity. The level of significance cannot be determined without addition analysis and documentation, completed of an Archeological Survey Report, as described in Section V (Cultural Resources) will reduce impacts. b) Level of Significance to be Determined. Pursuant California AB 52 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act tribal consultation will need to be initiated by the City. Without the results of this tribal consultation the potential impacts to tribal cultural resources cannot be determined at this time and subsequent environmental analysis will need to be performed to analyze the extent of these impacts.

PENDING TECHNICAL ANALYSIS: TRIBAL CONSULTATION
The City must complete Tribal Consolation with all tribes that have requested notification, pursuant to Assembly Bill 52. Consultation will include communication with Tribal Representative(s) to determine if the proposed project will negatively impact cultural resources and to agree on measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects, should they arise from project implementation.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 883, Packet Page 983 G-75

8.18. Utilities and Service Systems
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater
treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
X
City of Monterey Plans and
Public Works Department
City of Monterey PEEC
Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency
b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
X
City of Monterey Plans and
Public Works Department
City of Monterey PEEC
Water Management District
California American Water
Company
Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency
c) Require or result in the
construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities
or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey Plans and
Public Works Department
Monterey City Code (M.C.C.)
Chapter 31.5, Stormwater
Management
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Public Facilities Element
subsection l. Storm Drain
d) Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
X
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Public Facilities Element
subsection m. Water
e) Result in a determination
by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or
may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
X
City of Monterey Plans and
Public Works Department
Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Public Facilities Element
subsection k. Sewer
f) Be served by a landfill
with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal
needs? X
City of Monterey Solid Waste &
Recycling Division
Monterey Regional Waste
Management District
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Public Facilities Element
subsection n. Reduction and
Recycling of Waste
g) Comply with federal, state,
and local statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
X
City of Monterey Solid Waste &
Recycling Division
Monterey Regional Waste
Management District
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 884, Packet Page 984 G-76
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
City of Monterey PEEC, General
Plan Public Facilities Element
subsection n. Reduction and
Recycling of Waste
Note: As described in section c) below, a Hydrological Report will be prepared by the City during the design phase of the proposed project. Upon completion of this documents, the level of significance can be determined.

Existing Setting
The setting information provided below is based on information provided in the City’s General Plan and General Plan EIR.

Wastewater
The City maintains the sanitary sewer collection system within its jurisdictional boundaries. The existing sanitary sewer collection system conveys sewage from sewer point sources within the City, such as homes, businesses, and public facilities, to a regional wastewater treatment plant for treatment and disposal. The sanitary sewer collection system operated by the City consists of approximately 102 miles of sewer pipeline maintained by City personnel and seven sewer lift stations.

Monterey’s sewage is conveyed through pipelines to the Monterey One Water (M1W) regional treatment plant for treatment, reuse, and disposal. At the RTP, wastewater undergoes primary and secondary treatment and then can be reclaimed by either: (1) undergoing tertiary treatment and used as recycled ‘purple pipe’ water for irrigation, via the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project (SVRP) recycled water plant and the Castroville Seawater Intrusion (CSIP) distribution system; or (2) starting in 2019, undergoing advanced treatment, transport, and injection into the Seaside Groundwater Basin, via the Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) of the Pure water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (PWM/GWR) currently under construction. An average of 60 percent of M1W wastewater is recycled each year and that percentage will increase when the PWM/GWR Project is operational. M1W currently serves a population of approximately 250,000 people (M1W, 2017) and treats 17.2 million gallons per day (MGD) average dry weather flow (ADWF) for the 2014-2016 period (SWRP, April 2018), with a peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of 36.8 MGD (M1W,2016). The RTP is permitted for design flows of 29.6 MGD ADWF and 75.6 MGD PWWF, indicating available capacity for future runoff diversions. Any remaining secondary treated wastewater that is not used for CSIP or PWM/GWR uses above is discharged though an ocean outfall two miles into Monterey Bay. M1W pump station capacity for accepting diversions from lakes and reservoirs as well as additional storm drain diversions was considered as part of the Water Recovery Study.

Local sewer collection pipelines of various capacities exist underground within the City and eventually flow to larger sewer mains that feed into the M1W interceptor pipeline. The interceptor pipeline receives sewer flows from both Pacific Grove and Monterey and carries those flows to the wastewater treatment plant.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 885, Packet Page 985 G-77
The existing capacity of the local City system is adequate to convey the sewer loads generated, but the infrastructure needs repair and is planned to undergo rehabilitation in the near future upon funding availability. Rehabilitation of the City’s aged sewer collection system is an important factor in mitigating sewer spills locally and into Monterey Bay. As a result, the rehabilitation of this system is a priority project for the City’s Plans and Public Works Department.

Water
California American Water Company (CalAm) Cal-Am supplies water to the residential, municipal, and commercial needs of the Monterey Peninsula area communities. Cal-Am’s water distribution system distributes water from two main sources: the Carmel River and the Seaside Basin coastal subarea. The MPWMD regulates and manages water supplies for the area within its boundaries, which extend from Seaside to Carmel River and easterly covering the Carmel Valley watershed. As of the 2005 General Plan, the City had reached the limits of its allocation under the MPWMD allocation program and still has very little water available to meet the City’s goals. The City of Monterey has established an internal allocation system, whereby water allotments are established for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The City also maintains a portion of the total allocation as a citywide reserve.

Stormwater
The City maintains storm drainage infrastructure – drainage channels, storm drains, pipelines, culverts, pump stations, and outfalls - within the City of Monterey. The existing drainage system collects non-point surface water runoff and conveys it through channels, pipelines, and culverts that, in most instances, eventually terminate at the Monterey Bay. Monterey’s stormwater collection system is not tied into the sanitary sewer collection system. Therefore, stormwater flows are, for the most part, not treated prior discharge. Stormwater flows are discharged to local waterways including the Monterey Bay at multiple outfalls located throughout Monterey’s coastal area.

Monterey’s discharge of stormwater to local surface waters is regulated by the Federal Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program, and the California Porter-Cologne Act, and permitted through the State Water Resources Control Board and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City stormwater permit and ordinance control water pollution through the implementation of best management practices and local regulation of pollutant discharges into waters of the United States. To address regional urban runoff issues and develop innovative approaches to stormwater management, the City collaborates with local entities in the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program (MRSWMP), a regional stormwater management, implementation, and education program to accomplish permit compliance and water quality protection.

Solid Waste
The regional waste collection facility operated by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 886, Packet Page 986 G-78
Discussion
a), b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes diverting dry weather flows (April to October) to the sanitary sewer for recycling at the M1W RTP to augment water supply. The additional supply of water to the Regional Treatment Plant will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements nor require construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.
c) Level of Significance to be Determined. The project includes the construction of diversion facilities to capture to capture and divert dry weather flows (April to October) to the sanitary sewer for recycling at the M1W RTP to augment water supply. The project will construct new storm drain infrastructure just upstream of Hartnell Street. The project will also construct a low flow diversion structure within the channel, just upstream of Hartnell Street, that will flow to a wet well pump station and new sanitary diversion pipe line which will connect to the existing sanitary sewer in Hartnell Street. The potential level of significance of these new facilities will be determined after preparation of the Hydrological Report, as described in Section IX. d) No Impact. The proposed project would not include the use of water service connections. As such, there will not be an increased demand for these public utilities or service systems and there will be no impact.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes construction of diversion facilities to divert dry weather flows from the Hartnell watershed to the sanitary sewer, of which these flows would normally be captured by the storm drain system. The proposed project was selected as a part of the Stormwater Resource Plan for which M1W is the lead agency. The project will be subject to stormwater drainage requirements and erosion control measures that would prohibit negative impacts resulting from substantial erosion or siltation or flooding on- or off-site or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact. f), g) No Impact. The project will not generate solid waste. Therefore, there will be no impact.

8.19. Mandatory Findings of Significance
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant
Level of Significance to be Determined, see note
below.

City of Monterey PEEC
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 887, Packet Page 987 G-79
SUBJECT AREA Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

SUPPORTING

INFORMATION
or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have
impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
(“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a
project are considerable
when viewed in connection
with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the
effects of probable future
projects.)
X
City of Monterey PEEC
California Air Resources Board
(CARB)
California Air Pollution Control
Officers’ Association
(CAPCOA)

MBUAPCD
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
City of Monterey PEEC
Note: As described throughout this Preliminary Environmental Checklist, additional supporting documentation will be prepared by the City during the design phase of the proposed project. Upon completion of this documentation, the level of significance can be determined.

Discussion
a) Level of Significance to be Determined. The project is a creek restoration including removal of invasive plants, erosion control and revegetation of native plants as well as diversion of Hartnell Creek. The project proposes to restore native vegetation and habitats. As noted in this Preliminary Environmental Checklist, additional technical analysis and design documentation will be required in order to determine the level of impact to wildlife species. In addition to pending analysis and documentation, Mitigation Measures 1-6 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts related to development accommodated by the City’s General Plan over the next 15+ years were found to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR, As described above, the proposed project is a restoration and runoff diversion project and would not include housing or development areas that could induce growth and would also not remove any barriers that could result in population growth that would result in increased traffic.

The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, noise, recreation, and utilities/service systems.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 888, Packet Page 988 G-80
When considered cumulatively along with past, current, and probable future projects that may occur in the area, the proposed project’s contribution is considered negligible and would not be cumulatively considerable.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project will not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. Implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this document would ensure that the proposed project would not result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. Potential adverse effects on human beings through impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology/water quality, and noise have been addressed through proposed Mitigation Measures 1-6. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts would be less than significant.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 889, Packet Page 989 G-81

9. REFERENCES
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). 2009. www.ambag.org.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inve ntory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2009. http://www.capcoa.org/climatechange/
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2006. California Geological Survey (CGS).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016a. Monterey County Important Farmlands Map 2014. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/mnt14_no.pdf California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016b. Monterey County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Monterey_no_15_16_WA.pdf California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). 2010. Natural Communities List. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/List California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). 2017. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. April 2017.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2000. Monterey County Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire).

California Department of Toxic Substances (CDTS). 2009. EnviroStor Database. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ public/
CalRecycle. 2013. Facility/Site Summary Details: Monterey Peninsula Landfill (27-AA-0010). http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/27-AA-0010/Detail/ Central California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB). 2016. Water Quality Control Plan.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/i ndex.shtml
City of Monterey. 1997. Zoning Ordinance.

City of Monterey. 2005. General Plan. As amended March 2016.

City of Monterey. 2004. General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

City of Monterey. 2016. Fire Department. http://monterey.org/Fire.

City of Monterey. 2016. Maintenance Division-Streets & Utilities. http://www.monterey.org/streets/index.html.

City of Monterey. 2009. Planning and Engineering. Historic Master Plan.

City of Monterey. 2016. Monterey City Code. As amended 2016.

City of Monterey. 2016. Maintenance Division-Parks & Beaches. http://monterey.org/Services/Parks-and-Beaches
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 890, Packet Page 990 G-82
City of Monterey. 2016. Plans & Public Works Department. http://monterey.org/ppw/ .

City of Monterey. 2016. Police Department. http://monterey.org/Police.

City of Monterey. 2016. Recreation and Community Services Department. http://monterey.org/Services/Monterey-Recreation .

City of Monterey. 2016. Climate Action Plan.
http://www.monterey.org/Portals/0/Reports/ForPublicReview/Draft_Climate_Action_Pla n.pdf
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Program. 2017 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Available online:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A). 2017. Detention Basin Management Project Biological Resources Report.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for County of Monterey, City of Monterey (FIRMs last updated April 9, 2009).

Geosyntec, 2018. Monterey Peninsula Regional Stormwater Resource Plan.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California (OPR). 2004. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended 2004.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). 2016. 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region. Available online:
http://mbard.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2012-2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). 2008. 2008 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). 2012. Triennial Plan Revision. http://mbuapcd.org/pdf/Final_Triennial_Plan_Revision_041913.pdf Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). 2015. NCCAB Area Designations and Attainment Status. http://mbuapcd.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/01/attainment-status-january-2015.pdf Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission. 1987. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Monterey Peninsula Airport
Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD). www.mpusd.k12.ca.us/ Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/ Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program (MRSWMP), www.montereysea.org.

Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD). 2013. www.mrwmd.org/ .

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA). www.mrwpca.org/ .

Pacific Legacy. 2016. City of Monterey Detention Basin Project, Monterey County, California (3120-01). Letter report dated October 20, 2016.

Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 891, Packet Page 991 G-83
Figure
Preliminary Environmental Checklist
Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Stormwater Diversion Project Pacific Street
Hartnell Street
Polk Street
}68
Document Path: D:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2017-30 Monterey Peninsula Stormwater Resource Plan\Final Products\Project Location.mxd ^_
Proposed Project
100 50 0 100 Feet±
Project Location 1
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 892, Packet Page 992 G-84
³
Legend
Hartnell Gulch Project Footprint Existing Infrastructure Hartnell Gulch Project Drainage Area M1W Interceptor Pipeline - Pressurized Figure
Preliminary Environmental Checklist 2
Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Stormwater Diversion Project Source: Geosyntec, September, 2018
Hartnell Gulch Concept Design
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 893, Packet Page 993 G-85
³
Legend
Hartnell Gulch Project Footprint Existing Infrastructure Hartnell Gulch Project Drainage Area M1W Interceptor Pipeline - Pressurized Figure
Preliminary Environmental Checklist 3
Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Stormwater Diversion Project Source: Geosyntec, September, 2018
Hartnell Gulch Watershed
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 894, Packet Page 994 G-86
Figure
Preliminary Environmental Checklist
Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Stormwater Diversion Project SCALE: 1" = 15'-0"
0 5 15 30 90 150

EXISTING PATHS ONSITE

ASSUMED CIRCULATION ROUTES

STREAM FLOW IN CHANNEL

VERY STEEP BANK

MODERATELY STEEP BANK

POINT OF ENTRY

AREA OF OCCUPATION

GOOD VIEW POINT
HAZARD

CONCRETE WALL
Hartnell Gulch Site Inventory 4
Source: Ecological Concerns, Inc, Feb. 4, 2016
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 895, Packet Page 995 G-87
Figure
Preliminary Environmental Checklist
Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Stormwater Diversion Project

NON-NATIVE ANNUALS

KIKUYU GRASS

GINKGO TREE
FENNEL
OXALIS

NAKED LADY BULBS
PRUNUS

PALM SEEDLING

ELM HEDGE
IVY

EUCALYPTUS
FIG

IVY ALONG WALL

CAPE IVY

MOSTLY BARE WITH ANNUALS

AND A LITTLE BLACKBERRY

MONTBRETIA

ARBORESCENT IVY IN FRUIT

BIG MULTI-TRUNK ELM
(CROOKED/MOST TRUNKS FALLING)
ELM

VERY LARGE CYPRESS

CYPRESS
10 ELM

FALLING ELM

ROBINIA (NON-NATIVE)
ELM
4 ELM
5 POPULUS TRUNKS WITH SUCKERS
SCALE: 1" = 15'-0"
0 5 15 30 90 150
OXALIS

NON-NATIVE ANNUALS

ENGLIGH IVY

HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY

ELM SEEDLINGS

BINDWEED

KIKUYU GRASS

VELDTGRASS

CAPE IVY

LEGEND OF INVASIVE

GROUNDCOVER HATCHES

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Hartnell Gulch Existing Vegetation 5
Source: Ecological Concerns, Inc, Feb. 4, 2016
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 896, Packet Page 996 G-88
Figure
Preliminary Environmental Checklist
Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Stormwater Diversion Project

NATIVE MORNING GLORY

ALONG EDGE OF PARKING/

ON ELM AND RUBUS

REDWOOD

NUMEROUS
SALIX
4 QUERCUS

QUERCUS

PLANTED CYPRESS

TOPPED SALIX
SALIX
3 QUERCUS
4 SMALL QUERCUS

POSSIBLY MORE

UNDER DENSE IVY
2 QUERCUS
2 QUERCUS SEEDLINGS

QUERCUS

QUERCUS & SALIX MIX

QUERCUS
SALIX

RIBES SANGUINIUM

REDWOOD
SALIX

SPLITTING MULTI-TRUNK SALIX
4 SALIX

LARGE MONTEREY CYPRESS
TRUNK
SCALE: 1" = 15'-0"
0 5 15 30 90 150

DENSE SALIX
SMALL PLANTED Q. AGRIFOLIA

LARGE EUCALYPTUS TRUNK

LIMBED SALIX

TOP OF KNOLL
RESERVE FOR LOOKOUT AREA PLANT STEEP CHANNEL BANKS (2'-3' HIGH) OPTIONAL: RESERVE SPACE FOR PATH

ALONG EDGE OF PARKING LOT

FROM SPECIAL AREA TO STEPS

SPECIAL PLANTING AREA - NATIVE GARDEN

TOP OF SLOPE / BORDER PLANTING MIX

MID-SLOPE / BANK STABILIZATION MIX

SLOPE BOTTOM / CHANNEL EDGE MIX

EXISTING NATIVE TREE / SHRUB
PROTECT IN PLACE WHERE FEASIBLE:

Quercus agrifolia (some planted)
Salix lasiolepis
Cupressus macrocarpa (planted)
Sequoia sempervirens (planted)
Ribes sanguineum (planted)

LEGEND OF NATIVE

PLANTING AREA SPECIES MIXES

WILLOW STAKES

CUTTINGS TO BE SELECTED

FROM ONSITE MATERIAL,

PER DETAIL TBD

OAK TREES
Quercus agrifolia

BOX ELDER TREE
Acer negundo

NATIVE PLANT SPECIES LIST BY MIX
Hartnell Gulch Restoration Plan 6
Source: Ecological Concerns, Inc, Feb. 4, 2016
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 897, Packet Page 997 G-89
Figure
Preliminary Environmental Checklist
Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Stormwater Diversion Project 7 Figure 1. Standing on Hartnell Street facing west looking down at Hartnell Gulch Figure 3. Unimporved walking path that traverses Hartnell Gulch.

Figure 2. Facing east on the walking path boardering Hartnell Gulch Figure 4. Standing on Pacific Street facing East, looking down at Hartnell Gulch Hartnell Gulch Site Photos
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Design
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 898, Packet Page 998 G-90

APPENDIX H
Summary of Stakeholder Meetings

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 899, Packet Page 999 APPENDIX H: STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
This Appendix includes Stakeholder Outreach, Education, and Engagement Plan, along with summaries of the Stakeholder Meetings and Public Meeting. A summary of public comments received during the Public Meeting and during the public comment period, along with responses to comments, is also provided.

These items are provided on the following pages of this appendix:

1. Stakeholder Outreach, Education, and Engagement Plan ....................................................... H-2

2. Stakeholder Meeting #1 Summary........................................................................................ H-20

3. Stakeholder Meeting #2 Summary........................................................................................ H-24

4. Public Meeting Summary .................................................................................................... H-29

5. Public Comments Matrix ..................................................................................................... H-64 ****
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 900, Packet Page 1000 Stakeholder Outreach, Education, and
Engagement Plan
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-2
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 901, Packet Page 1001 Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) for the
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South
Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water
Management Planning Region
Stakeholder Outreach, Education, and
Engagement Plan (Grant Task 6.1.1)
Prepared for:

Monterey One Water
Prepared by:

EOA, Inc.
1021 S. Wolfe Rd.

Sunnyvale, CA 94086
August 28, 2017
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-3
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 902, Packet Page 1002 This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-4
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 903, Packet Page 1003

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................... I LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... I LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................................................... I LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... I

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

2.0 GOALS OF STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND ENGAGEMENT ...................................................... 2

3.0 KEY MESSAGES ............................................................................................................................................. 2

4.0 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND ENGAGEMENT TASKS ............................................................ 2

5.0 SUMMARY OF TASKS AND SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF TABLES
Table 5-1. Summary of Tasks and Schedule ................................................................................................. 5

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Potential Stakeholders Contact List
Attachment B: Potential Disadvantaged Communities Stakeholders Contact List Attachment B: Map of Disadvantaged Communities

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
DAC Disadvantaged Community
SWRP Stormwater Resource Plan
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
RWMG Regional Water Management Group
IRWMP Monterey Peninsula Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 904, Packet Page 1004 This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-6
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 905, Packet Page 1005

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Monterey One Water1 was awarded a Prop 1 Stormwater Planning Grant to develop a Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Region2. The SWRP will use a metrics-based approach to identify distributed and regional stormwater capture and treatment projects that can be implemented to augment water supply, improve surface water quality, and provide other benefits through enhanced stormwater management. The SWRP will include conceptual design and cost estimates for at least seven of the identified stormwater capture and treatment projects. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with participants from local municipalities, community groups, State Water Resources Control Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board will provide input on the SWRP development.

The SWRP will build upon the work done by the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Management Group3
(RWMG) to develop the Monterey Peninsula Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). The IRWMP seeks to coordinate the actions of more than 40 stakeholder entities involved in water resource protection, enhancement, and management in the planning Region. A stakeholder may be a public, private, or non-profit agency or organization in the area with an interest in water resources management within the Region/project area.

The SWRP Stakeholder Outreach, Education, and Engagement Plan (Plan) identifies the goals of stakeholder involvement, and describes the tasks that will be implemented to conduct outreach to stakeholders.

Interaction with Monterey Regional Water Recovery Study The SWRP project will also include conducting the Monterey Regional Water Recovery Study, which will examine the feasibility of establishing a Peninsula-wide water recovery and reclamation system throughout the planning area. The funding for the Water Recovery Study portion of the project serves as local matching funds for the State Prop 1 grant funded Stormwater Resource Plan. The Study will identify stormwater capture opportunities, and will also look at transport and treatment options for the water recovery project opportunities identified. The Water Recovery Study will be heavily integrated into the Stormwater Resource Plan, with all project opportunities identified for the Water Recovery Study included in the project list developed for the Stormwater Resource Plan. A Technical Stakeholder Group, consisting of participants in the region that are familiar with stormwater and wastewater distribution systems, treatment, and/or have technical knowledge of the Carmel River and groundwater basin or the Seaside groundwater basin, will provide input on the methodology used to conduct the Water Recovery Study.
1 Formerly known as the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA). 2 The 347 square-mile (sq. mi.) planning region includes the political boundaries of coastal cities, including Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside, and several unincorporated portions of Monterey County, including Carmel Valley, Pebble Beach, the Carmel Highlands, the Laguna Seca area, and the Ord Community. 3 The RWMG includes Big Sur Land Trust, City of Monterey, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey One Water, Marina Coast Water District, and Resource Conservation District of Monterey County.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-7
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 906, Packet Page 1006

2.0 GOALS OF STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND

ENGAGEMENT
Meaningful public participation goals, objectives, and strategies are critical to involving the public in the process of recommending and pursuing projects and programs in their communities. This Plan was prepared to coordinate and guide outreach activities to reach and involve stakeholders, by meaningful dialog, to communicate water resource issues that are important to them. Active stakeholder involvement during the development and implementation of the SWRP and associated stormwater capture and treatment projects will help ensure the desired environmental outcomes. Stakeholder outreach for the SWRP will be conducted to meet the following goals:

1. Inform stakeholders on the SWRP process and the need for stormwater capture and treatment projects.

2. Obtain stakeholder input in identifying locations and types of stormwater capture and treatment projects.

3. Obtain feedback on the initial prioritized list of potential projects.

4. Obtain comments on and support for the SWRP.

5. Obtain feedback on environmental justice needs and concerns associated with SWRP implementation.

3.0 KEY MESSAGES
The following key messages will be conveyed to stakeholders:
 Benefits of using stormwater as a resource;
 Purpose and content of the SWRP;
 Need for stormwater capture and treatment projects;
 Process for identifying, assessing, and prioritizing stormwater capture and treatment projects.

4.0 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND

ENGAGEMENT TASKS
The following tasks will be implemented to meet the goals of stakeholder outreach:

Task 1 – Stakeholder Group Formation
As part of developing the Monterey Peninsula IRWMP, the RWMG identified and contacted 130 stakeholders, representing public agencies, local municipalities and special districts, environmental nonprofits, community groups, academic educational institutions, private companies, landowners, and individuals. The SWRP project team and TAC updated the IRWMP stakeholder contact list to develop the potential stakeholders list included in Attachment A.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-8
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 907, Packet Page 1007 The RWMG wants to ensure that the water resource management needs and interests of disadvantaged communities (DACs)4 are fully addressed in the SWRP and that DACs are provided ample opportunities for involvement in plan development. To ensure that DACs are well represented on the Stakeholder Group, additional outreach will be conducted to disadvantaged community advocates. The following four census tracts within the SWRP area are considered DACs:
 Tract 127 (Monterey)
 Tract 136 (Seaside)
 Tract 137 (Seaside)
 Tract 140 (Seaside/Sand City)
The City of Seaside provided a list of potential DAC stakeholders (Attachment B). Contacts have also been requested from the City of Monterey. Anticipated additional outreach to the DACs may include follow up emails, targeted hard copy notice mailings, and phone calls, if needed. A map showing the DAC census tract boundaries is provided as Attachment C.

In addition to the above, participants on the Technical Stakeholder Group for the Water Recovery Study will also be invited to participate on the SWRP Stakeholder Group. The Technical Stakeholder Group is currently being formed.

Schedule – Potential stakeholders will be contacted in September 2017, and the Stakeholder Group will be established in early October 2017.

Task 2 – Quarterly Updates
Beginning November 2017, quarterly updates will be sent via e-mail to the SWRP Stakeholder Group to provide information to them on the progress toward the completion of the SWRP. Informational materials (e.g., flyers, fact sheets) will be developed and distributed to stakeholders as part of the quarterly update. In addition, information pertaining to the SWRP will be regularly posted on the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program website.

Schedule: Quarterly, beginning November 2017.

Task 3 – Stakeholder Group Information Requests and Meetings As described below, Monterey One Water plans to hold two Stakeholder Group meetings to share information and solicit input on the SWRP:
 The first meeting will introduce the Stakeholder Group to the SWRP planning process, provide information on the metrics and methodology for identifying, assessing and prioritizing potential projects, present preliminary findings from the Water Recovery Project Feasibility Study, and provide opportunities for stakeholders to submit project ideas.  The second meeting will be held to obtain feedback from stakeholders on the preliminary ranked project list and follow up actions.

At least a month prior to the first meeting, the SWRP Stakeholder Group will be contacted and requested to provide the information regarding stakeholder planned projects relevant to the SWRP. 4 A DAC is a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the Statewide annual median household income (Water Code §79505.5).

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-9
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 908, Packet Page 1008 This will allow engagement from stakeholders in identification of project opportunities. The project identification request will be sent in the form of an e-mail, with an attached spreadsheet form that stakeholders may fill out with potential project opportunities. The project identification request will be discussed at the first Stakeholder Group meeting and will be due shortly afterward.

Stakeholders will be provided project lists with the rankings of their identified projects per the metricsbased project evaluation method used. Following the second SWRP Stakeholder Group meeting, input will be requested from stakeholders regarding the project ranking and prioritization. For those stakeholders that are also cooperating entities or interested parties, input will also be requested for project opportunities identified through additional geospatial analysis conducted by the project team, which fall within the entities’ jurisdiction. The stakeholders will have two weeks to provide input on the project prioritization.

Schedule:
 Project Solicitation Request – September 2017
 First meeting – October 2017
 Second meeting – January 2018
 Project Prioritization Input Request – January 2018
Task 4 – Public Workshop
One public workshop will be held to present the draft SWRP to stakeholders and the general public to obtain their feedback. A bilingual flyer (English and Spanish) will be developed and distributed via email and community center postings.

Schedule: June 2018.

Task 5 - Stakeholder Involvement in the Implementation of the SWRP and Completion of Projects Following completion of the final SWRP, further input will be sought from stakeholders in affected communities. This step will increase stakeholder involvement in the project design and develop partnerships needed for implementation and operation and maintenance.

Schedule: TBD.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-10
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 909, Packet Page 1009

5.0 SUMMARY OF TASKS AND SCHEDULE
Table 5-1 summarizes the stakeholder outreach, education and engagement tasks and the schedule for implementation.

Table 5-1. Summary of Tasks and Schedule
Task Description Schedule
1 Stakeholder Group Formation  Contact potential stakeholders – September 2017  Establish Stakeholder Group – October 2017
2 Quarterly Updates  Quarterly, beginning November 2017 3 Stakeholder Group Information
Requests and Meetings
 Project Solicitation Request – September 2017
 First meeting – October 2017
 Second meeting – January 2018
 Project Prioritization Input Request – January 2018
4 Public Workshop  June 2018
5 Stakeholder Involvement in
Implementation of SWRP and
Completion of Projects
 TBD
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-11
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 910, Packet Page 1010 Attachment A
Monterey SWRP
Potential Stakeholders Contact List
Contact E-mail Address Organization

FEDERAL AGENCIES
Bridget Hoover [email protected] Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Frank Schwing [email protected] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries
Dan Martel [email protected] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacob Martin [email protected] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Larry Freeman [email protected] US Geological Survey
John Warner [email protected] USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Shawn Milar [email protected] USFWS Coastal Program
Jeff Kwasny [email protected] US Forest Service
Gail Youngblood [email protected] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers David Eisen [email protected] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Joel Casagrande [email protected] NOAA
Amanda Morrison [email protected] NOAA
Tim Jensen [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District Robert Guidi [email protected] US Army, Department of Public works Joelle Lobo [email protected] Presidio of Monterey Jay Tulley [email protected] Presidio of Monterey Robert Henderson [email protected] Naval Postgraduate School Vicki Taber [email protected] Naval Support Activity Monterey Chad Mitcham [email protected] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

STATE AGENCIES
Jeff Frey [email protected] California State Parks
Mike Watson [email protected] California Coastal Commission Tamara Doan [email protected] California Coastal Commission Trish Chapman [email protected] California Coastal Conservancy Annette Tenneboe [email protected] California Department of Fish and Wildlife Margaret Paul [email protected] California Department of Fish & Game: Fisheries John Shelton [email protected] California Department of Fish and Game Jan Sweigert [email protected] California State Water Resources Control Board Michelle Dooley [email protected] California Department of Water Resources Dane Mathis [email protected] California Department of Water Resources Monica Reis [email protected] California Department of Water Resources Steve Bachman [email protected] California State Parks Brent Marshall [email protected] California State Parks Anya Spear [email protected] California State University Monterey Bay Katherine Mrowka [email protected] California State Water Resources Control Board Vicky Whitney [email protected] California State Water Resources Control Board Laleh Rastegarzadeh [email protected] California State Water Resources Control Board Jodi Pontureri [email protected] California State Water Resources Control Board Rachid Ait-Lasri [email protected] California State Water Resources Control Board Carolyn Saputo [email protected] California State Water Resources Control Board Pete Riegelhuth [email protected] Caltrans
Lyn Wickham [email protected] Caltrans
Nancy Siepel [email protected] Caltrans
Lisa McCann [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Angela Schroeter [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Dominic Roques [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Julia Dyer [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Matt Keeling [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Katie McNeill [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Hector Hernandez [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 5 Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-12
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 911, Packet Page 1011 Attachment A
Monterey SWRP
Potential Stakeholders Contact List
Contact E-mail Address Organization
Lisa Lurie [email protected] Agriculture Water Quality Alliance Elizabeth Russell [email protected] Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Steve Endsley [email protected] Fort Ord Reuse Authority
Michael A. Houlemard, Jr. [email protected] Fort Ord Reuse Authority Jonathan Garcia [email protected] Fort Ord Reuse Authority Janna Faulk [email protected] Monterey County Environmental Health Roger VanHorn [email protected] Monterey County Environmental Health Cheryl Sandoval [email protected] Monterey County Environmental Health Kate McKenna [email protected] Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission Phil Yenovkian [email protected] Monterey County Office of Emergency Services Lynette Redman [email protected] Monterey County Public Works Ogarita Carranza [email protected] Monterey County Public Works Paul Robins [email protected] Monterey County Resource Conservation District Carl P. Holm [email protected] Monterey County Resource Management Agency Melanie Beretti [email protected] Monterey County Resource Management Agency Elizabeth Krafft [email protected] Monterey County Resource Management Agency Robert Johnson [email protected] Monterey County Resource Management Agency Tom Moss [email protected] Monterey County Resource Management Agency Tom Harty [email protected] Monterey County Resource Management Agency Bob Roach [email protected] Monterey County Weed Management Area Tim Jensen [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District Rafael Payan [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District Shelly Glennon [email protected] Monterey Airport District Chris Morello [email protected] Monterey Airport District Richard LeWarne [email protected] Monterey County Environmental Health WATER / WASTEWATER DISTRICTS, JPAs & PRIVATE WATER SUPPLIERS Jan Shriner [email protected] Marina Coast Water District Eric Sabolsice [email protected] California American Water Company Richard Svindland [email protected] California American Water Company Catherine Stedman [email protected] California American Water Company Christopher Cook [email protected] Cal Am Water Company Ian Crooks [email protected] Cal Am Water Company
Barbara Buikema [email protected] Carmel Area Wastewater District Drew Lander [email protected] Carmel Area Wastewater District Brian True [email protected] Marina Coast Water District
Mike Wegley [email protected] Marina Coast Water District Manuel Quezada [email protected] Monterey County Water Resources Agency Lance Monosoff [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Sara Reyes [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Jonathan Lear [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Kevan Urquhart [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Mark Dudley [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Thomas Christensen [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Larry Hampson [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Maureen Hamilton [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Paul Sciuto [email protected] Monterey One Water
Bob Holden [email protected] Monterey One Water
Mike McCullough [email protected] Monterey One Water
Jennifer Gonzales [email protected] Monterey One Water Alison Imamura [email protected] Monterey One Water
Jeff Condit [email protected] Monterey One Water
J.T. Rethke [email protected] Pebble Beach Community- Service District Mike Niccum [email protected] Pebble Beach Community Service District Forrest Arthur [email protected] Santa Lucia Preserve Community Services District Leif Utegaard [email protected] Santa Lucia Preserve Community Services District Bob Jaques [email protected] Seaside Basin Watermaster Dewey Evans [email protected] Seaside Basin Watermaster

REGIONAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT/LOCAL AGENCIES, COUNCILS, DISTRICTS, & ADVISORY COMMITTEES (BESIDES WATER)
5 Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-13
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 912, Packet Page 1012 Attachment A
Monterey SWRP
Potential Stakeholders Contact List
Contact E-mail Address Organization

MUNICIPALITIES
Sharon Friedrichsen [email protected] City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Agnes Topp [email protected] City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Marc Wiener [email protected] City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Edrie de los Santos [email protected] City of Marina Dino Pick [email protected] City of Del Rey Oaks Keith Van Der Maaten [email protected] Marina Coast Water District Tricia Wotan [email protected] City of Monterey
Jeff Krebs [email protected] City of Monterey
Milas Smith [email protected] City of Pacific Grove Dan Gho [email protected] City of Pacific Grove Rick Riedl [email protected] City of Seaside
Scott Ottmar [email protected] City of Seaside
Leslie Llantero [email protected] City of Seaside Leon Gomez [email protected] City of Sand City Public Works and City Engineer

ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS / RESEARCH
Dr. Meg Caldwell [email protected] Center for Ocean Solutions Brian Anderson [email protected] Marine Pollution Studies Lab - UC Davis Josh Plant [email protected] Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Ken Johnson [email protected] Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Carol Reeb [email protected] Stanford University- Hopkins Marine Station Dr Fred Watson [email protected] The Watershed Institute at CSUMB Vince Voegeli [email protected] UC Berkeley Hastings Reserve Laura Lee Lienk [email protected] Watershed Institute at CSUMB Gabby Alberola [email protected] CSUMB
Doug Smith [email protected] Watershed Institute at CSUMB Jody Hansen [email protected] Monterey Peninsula College
Rick Boggs [email protected] California State University Monterey Bay

PRIVATE COMPANIES/BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
Doug Dowden [email protected]
Frank Pierce [email protected] Lee & Pierce, Inc.

Second Nature [email protected] Second Nature
Dawn Mathes [email protected] Pebble Beach Company

POLITICAL CONTACTS
Jane Parker [email protected] Supervisor Jane Parker, Mo Co District 4 Mary Adams (Susan
Moore, Office Manager)
[email protected] Supervisor Mary Adam, Mo Co District 5 Larry Parrish [email protected] Green Party of Monterey County ALL IRWM Key Contacts
Kimberly Null [email protected] Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Cal State Charlie Endris [email protected] Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Cal State Kamille Hammerstrom [email protected] Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Cal State Kevin O'Connor [email protected] Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Cal State John Hunt [email protected] UC Davis
Susan Robinson [email protected] Greater Monterey County IRWMP John Ricker [email protected] Northern Santa Cruz County Tracy Hemmeter [email protected] Santa Clara Valley Water District Courtney Howard [email protected] San Luis Obispo County: Division of Public Works Kevin Walsh [email protected] Santa Barbara County Public Works Department Matt Naftaly [email protected] Santa Barbara County Public Works Department Ross Clark [email protected] Central Coast Wetland Group/ Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
5 Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-14
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 913, Packet Page 1013 Attachment A
Monterey SWRP
Potential Stakeholders Contact List
Contact E-mail Address Organization

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS & CITIZEN GROUPS
Rachel Saunders [email protected] Big Sur Land Trust Sarah Hardgrave [email protected] Big Sur Land Trust Joanna Devers [email protected] Big Sur Land Trust Philomena Smith [email protected] California Native Plant Society, Monterey Chapter David Styer [email protected] California Native Plant Society, Monterey Chapter Mary Ann Matthews [email protected] California Native Plant Society, Monterey Chapter Nikki Nedeff [email protected] California Native Plant Society, Monterey Chapter Roger Williams [email protected] Carmel River Steelhead Association Brian LeNeve [email protected] Carmel River Steelhead Association Roy Thomas, President [email protected] Carmel River Steelhead Association Frank Emerson [email protected] Carmel River Steelhead Association Lorin Letendre [email protected] Carmel River Watershed Conservancy Clive Sanders [email protected] Carmel River Watershed Conservancy Jack Hammerland [email protected] Carmel River Watershed Conservancy Todd Norgaard [email protected] Carmel Valley Association Ken Ekelund [email protected] Citizen Watershed Monitoring Network George T. Riley [email protected] Citizens for Public Water Donna Meyers [email protected] Conserve Collaborate Don Eastman [email protected] Del Monte Forest Property Owners Sherry Bryan [email protected] Ecology Action
Bob Sevene [email protected] FORT Friends (Fort Ord Recreation Trails Friends) Gail Morton [email protected] Fort Ord Recreation Users Margaret Davis [email protected] Friends of Fort Ord Warhorse Chris Mack [email protected] Keep Fort Ord Wild
Gordon Smith [email protected] Keep Fort Ord Wild
Mike DeLapa [email protected] LandWatch Monterey County Renate Robe [email protected] Marina Equestrian Center
Lisa Emanuelson [email protected] Monterey Bay Citizen Watershed Monitoring Network Doug Deitch [email protected] Monterey Bay Conservancy Artthur McLoughlin [email protected] Monterey Bay Youth Camp Steve Shimek [email protected] Monterey Coastkeeper/The Otter Project Sharon Lacalamita [email protected] Monterey Search and Rescue Dogs, Inc.

Darius Rike [email protected] MORCA (Monterey Off-Road Cycling Association) Gary Courtright [email protected] MORCA
Dr. Monica Hunter [email protected] Planning and Conservation League Christina Fischer [email protected] Santa Lucia Conservancy Katherine O'Dea [email protected] Save Our Shores Maris Sidenstecker [email protected] Save The Whales Joel Weinstein [email protected] Sierra Club Tom Moore, Fort Ord
specialist
[email protected] Sierra Club
Tony Tersol [email protected] Surfrider Foundation
Sarah Corbin [email protected] Surfrider Foundation Luana Conley [email protected] Sustainable Marina (residents group) Kay Cline [email protected] Sustainable Marina (residents group) Michael Waxer [email protected] Step Up 2 Green / Sustainability Academy Sarah Newkirk [email protected] The Nature Conservancy
Sam Davidson [email protected] Trout Unlimited
Tim Frahm [email protected] Trout Unlimited
Tom Hopkins, President [email protected] Ventana Wilderness Alliance Dennis Palm [email protected] Ventana Wilderness Alliance Mike Splain [email protected] Ventana Wilderness Alliance Kelly Sorenson [email protected] Ventana Wildlife Society Bob Steinberg [email protected] Interested Citizen
Doug Rogers [email protected] Interested Citizen
Bill Carrothers [email protected] Interested Citizen Jason Campbell [email protected] Interested Citizen 5 Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-15
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 914, Packet Page 1014 Attachment A
Monterey SWRP
Potential Stakeholders Contact List
Contact E-mail Address Organization
CARMEL RIVER TASK FORCE / ADVISORY COMMITTEES, (Only representatives not mentioned elsewhere are listed) Andy Magnasco [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Ashley Blacow [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Bachman Stephen [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Beverly Chaney [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Bobette Parsons [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Brian Meux [email protected] Carmel River Task Force
Chris Counts [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Dawn Reis [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Fred Watson [email protected] Carmel River Task Force
Jacqueline Pearson Meyer [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Joe Rawitzer [email protected] Carmel River Task Force
John Silveus [email protected] Carmel River Task Force John Wandke [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Josh Harwayne [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Larry Hampson [email protected] Carmel River Task Force
Leah MacCarter [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Lynn Cellars [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Marie Butcher [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Matthew Michie [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Michael Emmett [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Pamela Krone-Davis [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Paola Berthoin [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Paul Bruno [email protected] Carmel River Task Force
Priscilla Walton [email protected] ' Carmel River Task Force Stephen Davis [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Tanja Roos [email protected] Carmel River Task Force William Stevens [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Williams Tommy [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Mark Edria [email protected] Carmel River Task Force

DISADVANTAGE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
Mel Mason [email protected] NAACP
Carlos Ramos [email protected] LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS Paola Ramos [email protected] Environmental Justice Coalition for Water LeVonne Stone [email protected] Ford Ord Environmental Justice Network Karen McBride [email protected] Rural Communities Assistance Corporation

NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
Jakki Kehl [email protected]
Chief Tony Cerda [email protected] Rumsen Tribe
[email protected]
Valentin Lopez [email protected] Amah Mutsun Tribal Band [email protected]
Louise Ramirez [email protected]
[email protected] Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
[email protected]
5 Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-16
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 915, Packet Page 1015 Attachment B
Monterey SWRP
Potential Disadvantaged Communities Stakeholders Contact List Group Contact Person Address City State ZIP
Alliance on Aging 280 Dickman Avenue Monterey CA 93940
City of Del Rey Oaks Daniel Dawson 650 Canyon Del Rey Del Rey Oaks CA 93940 Del Monte Manor Villa Del
Monte Senior Housing
Low Cost Housing 1466 Yosemite Street Seaside CA 93955
Alliance on Aging 570 Lighthouse Avenue Pacific Grove CA 93950 City of Marina Community 209 Cypress Avenue Marina CA 93933 Del Rey Woods School Principal 1281 Plumas Avenue Seaside CA 93955 Association of Monterey
Bay Area Governments
PO Box 2453 Seaside CA 93955
City of Monterey 580 Pacific Street Monterey CA 93940
Disabled Veterans James Bogan PO Box 1452 Seaside CA 93955 Disabled Veterans James Bogan 1633 Highland Street Seaside CA 93955 American Legion 1000 Playa Avenue Seaside CA 93955
City of Pacific Grove 300 Forest Avenue Pacific Grove CA 93950 El Sol 123 West Alisal Street Salinas CA 93901
Blind and Visually Impaired
Center of Monterey County
225 Laurel Avenue Pacific Grove CA 93950
City of Sand City 1 Sylvan Park Sand City CA 93955
Emmanuel Church of God in
Christ
1450 Sonoma Avenue Seaside CA 93955
CSUMB Rebecca Moreno,
Coodinator of
Community
100 Campus Center Seaside CA 93955
County of Monterey
Department of Social
1000 South Main St., Ste 209-
A
Salinas CA 93901
County of Monterey
Department of Social
Branch Director,Henry
Espinosa
1000 South Main St., Ste 211 Salinas CA 93901
County of Monterey
Department of Social
Services
Margarita Zarraga 1000 South Main St., Ste 301 Salinas CA 93901 County of Monterey
Department of Social
Services
Robert Taniguchi,
Branch Director
1000 South Main St., Ste 205 Salinas CA 93901
Faith Luthern Church 1460 Hilby Avenue Seaside CA 93955 CHISPA, Inc. 295 Main Street, Ste 100 Salinas CA 93901
Friends of the Seaside Alicia O'Neill, President 550 Harcourt Avenue Seaside CA 93955 Christian Memorial
Community Church
2699 Colonel Durham St. Seaside CA 93955
Hilltop United Methodist
Church of Seaside
1340 Hilby Avenue Seaside CA 93955
Christian Methodist
Episcopal Church
625 Elm Avenue Seaside CA 93955
Housing Resource Center 201 John Street Salinas CA 93901 Citizens League for Progress Ewalker James PO Box 1272 Seaside CA 93955 Citizens League for Progress Ewalker James 1399 Darwin Street Seaside CA 93955 Interim, Inc. PO Box 3222 Monterey CA 93942
International School 1720 Yosemite Street Seaside CA 93955 KAZU Radio (Public Radio) 100 Campus Center Seaside CA 93955 1 Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-17
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 916, Packet Page 1016 Attachment B
Monterey SWRP
Potential Disadvantaged Communities Stakeholders Contact List Group Contact Person Address City State ZIP
KION-TV (Chanel 46) 1550 Moffett Street Salinas CA 93905 KSBW-TV (Chanel 8) PO Box 81651 Salinas CA 93912
KSBW-TV (Chanel 8) 238 John Street, Salinas CA 93901
KSMS-TV (Chanel 67) 67 Garden Court Monterey CA 93940
Monterey Bay LINKS, Inc. Ruthie Watts PO Box 1699 Seaside CA 93955 Monterey Bay LINKS, Inc. Ruthie Watts 9 Stowe Court Seaside CA 93955 LULAC PO Box 1396 Salinas CA 93902
Martin Luther King School Principal 1713 Broadway Avenue Seaside CA 93955 Monterey County Advocacy
Housing Council
34 E. Rossi Street Salinas CA 93907
Monterey County Herald Newsroom PO Box 271 Monterey CA 93940 Monterey County Housing
Authority
123 Rico Street Salinas CA 93907
Monterey County Office of
Education
PO Box 80851 Salinas CA 93912
Monterey County Office of
Education
901 Blanco Circle Salinas CA 93901
Monterey County Weekly 668 Williams Avenue Seaside CA 93955 Monterey Peninsula College Student Services 980 Fremont Street Monterey CA 93940 MPUSD Board of Education 1295 La Salle Avenue Seaside CA 93955 MPUSD 700 Pacific Street Monterey CA 93940
NAACP 1104 Broadway Avenue Seaside CA 93955
Del Monte Manor Neighborhood Network
Center
1466 Yosemite Street Seaside CA 93955
Parade of Champions Jerry Thorne PO Box 811 Seaside CA 93955 Salvation Army Monterey Peninsula
Corps
1491 Contra Costa Street Seaside CA 93955
Seaside High School
Robotics Club
Principal 2200 Noche Buena Street Seaside CA 93955
Seaside Middle School Principal 999 Coe Avenue Seaside CA 93955 Seaside Lions Club PO Box 874 Seaside CA 93955
Seaside Raiders PO Box 813 Seaside CA 93955
Seaside City Chamber of
Commerce
505 Broadway Avenue Seaside CA 93955
Shelter Outreach Plus PO Box 1340 Marina CA 93933
Shelter Outreach Plus 3087 Wittenmyer Court Marina CA 93933 St. Francis Xavier Church 1475 La Salle Avenue Seaside CA 93955 2 Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-18
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 917, Packet Page 1017 £¤1
£¤1 £¤68

DEL REY

MONTEREY OAKS

PACIFIC
GROVE
SAND
CITY

SEASIDE
Census
Tract 136
($46,756)
Census
Tract 137
($42,551)
Census
Tract 140
($47,759)
Census
Tract 127
($46,400)
P:\GIS\MRWPCA\Project\MRSWMP_FigureA.1-4.mxd 3/10/2016 9:42:51 AM 0 0.75
Miles
³
Attachment C - Map of Disadvantaged
Communities in the Proposed Stormwater
Resource Plan Area
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Stakeholder Outreach Plan
Figure
1 Oakland, CA March 2016
Legend
Integrated
Regional
Water
Management
Plan Area
Highways
DAC Census
Tracts
City Limits
£¤1
£¤101
£¤68
£¤183
£¤68
NOTE: The 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates shows that four census tracts within the planning region can be considered a disadvantaged community (DAC). According to the ACS survey, the median household income (MHI) at which an area can be considered a DAC is $48,706 (i.e., 80% of the California MHI). The Census tracts outlined in this figure are considered DAC because their MHI (in parenthesis) were reported to be below that threshold MHI.

Notes:

Shapefiles and maps received from
the Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments and the Monterey Peninsula
Water Management Agency.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-19
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 918, Packet Page 1018 Stakeholder Meeting #1 Summary
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-20
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 919, Packet Page 1019 Stormwater Resource Plan for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Region
Stakeholder Group
Meeting #1
Tuesday, October 17, 2017, 9:45 am – 12:00 pm

MEETING SUMMARY
Participants – Attendance list attached.

1. Welcome/Introductions
Jeff Condit (Monterey One Water) welcomed stakeholders to the meeting.

2. Background
Jeff updated attendees on the purpose of the Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) and the role of Monterey One Water, MRSWMP, consultant team, and stakeholders.

3. Overview of Project
Kelly Havens (Geosyntec) described the project area watersheds, outline of the SWRP report, and provided an overview of the methodology for identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing local and regional stormwater capture projects. She also updated attendees on the spreadsheet that was sent to them for collecting information on potential projects. Attendees asked clarifying questions and provided the following feedback:
 Ensure that the SWRP development is a collaborative effort. Identified projects should not be in conflict with each other. For example, someone proposing a project upstream could adversely impact another project downstream.
 Consider including a regulatory evaluation in the project ranking process.  Consider informing Monterey County supervisors about the SWRP development process to ensure that permitting is easier for prioritized projects.  Add a discussion of permitting requirements to the SWRP (Implementation Section).  During project prioritization, provide more points to projects that increase water supply and/or reduce water consumption.
 Identify opportunities for combining smaller projects into a regional project during the project prioritization process. Scoring criteria should consider this coordination with projects.  Consider providing more points for projects that positively impact more miles of an impaired water body.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-21
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 920, Packet Page 1020 Kelly provided the following clarifications based on questions from attendees:
 Projects that are not fully developed in terms of budget/approval can be submitted. Inclusion in the SWRP does not commit an agency to constructing the project.  Even projects that appear to have lower environmental benefits should be submitted. To be eligible for future grant funding, the projects should be included in the SWRP.  Google map files can be submitted if the exact project address/parcel number is not known.  Only projects that have a project proponent should be submitted.  There may be opportunities to submit projects later through updates to the SWRP and IRWMP.

4. Summary and Schedule of Stakeholder Input Requested throughout the Project Vishakha Atre (EOA) provided an overview of the main SWRP products that will be sent to the stakeholders for review and input. These products and due dates for comments/input are described below:
 Data on potential projects and comments on the project prioritizing methodology - October 31, 2017.
 Feedback on the prioritized list of projects - January 2018  Feedback on draft SWRP - May/June 2018.

Action Items:
 The consultant team will send today’s presentation and the spreadsheet for submitting potential projects to stakeholders.
 Stakeholders will submit comments and potential projects by October 31, 2017.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-22
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 921, Packet Page 1021 Monterey Pennisula Stakeholder Group Meeting #1
List of Attendees
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Name Organization
Agnes Topp City of Carmel
Alison Imamura Monterey One Water
Andrew Racz Marina Coast Water District
Andy Magnasco Carmel River Task Force
Barbara Buikema Carmel Wastewater
Catherine Stedman California American Water Company
Chris Cook American Water Company
Denise Duffy Denise Duffy & Associates
Diana Staines Denise Duffy & Associates
Drew Lander Carmel Area Wastewater District
Eric Sand Carmel Valley Association
Frank Pierce
Gail Morton Fort Ord Recreation Users
Gary Conley Second Nature
Jeff Condit Monterey One Water
Jill Bicknell EOA, Inc.

Jody Hansen Monterey Peninsula College
Joelle Lobo Presidio of Monterey
Karen Riley-Olms County of Monterey
Kelly Havens Geosyntec
Laura Dadiw Watermaster
Laurie Williamson City of Monterey
Leah MacCarter Carmel River Task Force
Leif Utegaard Santa Lucia Preserve Community Services District Lisa Austin Geosyntec
Lisa Emanuelson Monterey Bay Citizen Watershed Monitoring Network Lorin Letendre Carmel River Watershed Conservancy
MaryBeth Dreusike Naval Support Activity Monterey
Maureen Hamilton Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Mike McCullough Monterey One Water
Milas Smith City of Pacific Grove
Nick Becker Pebble Beach Community- Service District
Paul Robins Monterey County Resource Conservation District Rick Boggs California State University Monterey Bay
Sarah Hardgrave Big Sur Land Trust
Scott Ottmar City of Seaside
Shelley Glennon Monterey Airport
Tom Harty Monterey County Resource Management Agency
Tom Reeves Big Sur Land Trust
Tricia Wotan City of Monterey
Vicki Taber Naval Support Activity Monterey
Vishakha Atre EOA, Inc.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-23
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 922, Packet Page 1022 Stakeholder Meeting #2 Summary
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-24
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 923, Packet Page 1023 Stormwater Resource Plan for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Region
Stakeholder Group
Meeting #2
Thursday, February 8, 2018, 10:00 am – 12:00 pm

MEETING SUMMARY
Participants – Attendance list attached.
1) Welcome/Introductions
Jeff Condit (Monterey One Water) welcomed stakeholders to the meeting. Stakeholders introduced themselves.
2) Background
Jeff updated attendees on the purpose of the Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) and the role of Monterey One Water, MRSWMP, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), consultant team, and stakeholders.
3) Purpose of Stakeholder Meeting #2
Vishakha Atre (EOA) informed stakeholders that the purpose of this meeting is to: 1) present the prioritized list of multi-benefit stormwater capture projects to stakeholders; 2) obtain stakeholder input for identifying the top seven projects for which designs will be developed; and 3) obtain stakeholder input on project characteristics that should be considered for identifying top projects. 4) SWRP Status
Vishakha provided the following overview of the methodology for identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing local and regional stormwater capture projects:
 Over 2,000 planned and potential project opportunities were identified using the list of planned projects submitted by stakeholders, projects identified in the Water Recovery Study, and a GIS-based opportunity analysis.
 The identified project opportunities were preliminarily scored using a metrics-based multibenefit evaluation consistent with the requirements of the State’s SWRP Guidance.  The scored project lists were submitted to jurisdictions for ranking based on their local priorities.
 A spreadsheet summarizing the overall list of 2,000+ projects, the top 2% of project opportunities identified by each jurisdiction, and the feedback from the jurisdictions was sent to the stakeholders for review.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-25
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 924, Packet Page 1024 Vishakha described the prioritized projects spreadsheet in detail and showed attendees a Google Earth map identifying the top 2% projects. Attendees provided the following feedback:
 Consider simplifying the list of prioritized projects so it is easier for the general public to understand. For the SWRP Public Workshop, the list could include the project name/location, type, name of the project owner (jurisdiction), rank/score, and the reason for the ranking.  Ensure that project implementation is a collaborative effort. Identified projects should not be in conflict with each other.
 The focus of project prioritization should be water supply augmentation, not stormwater infiltration. Lisa noted that grant guidelines require the projects to have multiple benefits. The project list includes over 200 water recovery opportunities identified through the Water Recovery Study.
 Identify State Parks as a separate project owner. Currently, land owned by State Parks is identified under unincorporated County.
 The analysis should include consideration of the geologic feasibility for infiltration.

Lisa Welsh (Geosyntec) and Vishakha provided the following clarifications based on questions from attendees:
 The metrics-based scoring does not take local factors (e.g., a jurisdiction’s local planning priorities, funding availability, etc.) into account; therefore, ranking based on local factors is important.
 Project ranks can be elevated based on feedback received from local communities and stakeholders.
 Ability to provide match funds can be a criteria considered during project ranking.  The Water Recovery Study will be attached to the SWRP. It will be available for public review and comment along with the draft SWRP.
 All identified project opportunities will be included in the SWRP and be eligible to receive future grant funds.
 Project descriptions are not included in the spreadsheet because most of the projects are opportunities identified through GIS-based analysis, or planned projects in preliminary stages.  The draft SWRP will be posted online for review by the public. 5) Stakeholder Activity to Identify Top Project Characteristics Attendees participated in an activity to identify the top three project characteristics important to them. Ten poster boards listing project characteristics were placed on a table. Attendees were given three dot stickers each and asked to place one sticker on each project characteristic important to them. The project characteristics are listed below in the order of preference, with #1 being the characteristic that received most votes:

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-26
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 925, Packet Page 1025

1. Water supply benefits.

2. Synergy of project with upcoming projects.

3. Project is part of larger restoration or watershed improvement plans.

4. Water quality benefits.

5. Location of project in a disadvantaged community, and cost of long-term project maintenance (both received the same number of votes).

6. Cost of project construction.

7. Community support or opposition, and potential for public education (both received the same number of votes).

Action Items:
 Stakeholders will submit comments on the prioritized project list by February 16, 2018.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-27
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 926, Packet Page 1026 Monterey Pennisula Stakeholder Group Meeting #2
List of Attendees
Name Thursday, February 8, 2018 Organization
1 Agnes Topp City of Carmel
2 Alexander Wade Presidio of Monterey – Directorate of Public Works/ Military Personnel Division
3 Alison Imamura Monterey One Water
4 Andrew Racz Marina Coast Water District
5 Chris Morello Monterey Airport
6 Diana Staines Denise Duffy & Associates
7 Drew Lander Carmel Area Wastewater District
8 Elai Fresco Geosyntec
9 Elizabeth Payne State Water Board
10 Frank Pierce Pacific Grove Resident
11 George T. Riley Citizen for Public Water
12 Jay Tulley Presidio of Monterey
13 Jeff Condit Monterey One Water
14 Jeff Krebs City of Monterey
15 Joelle Lobo Presidio of Monterey
16 Leon D. Gomez CD Engineers
17 Lisa Emanuelson Monterey Bay Citizen Watershed Monitoring Network 18 Lisa Welsh Geosyntec
19 Lorin Letendre Carmel River Watershed Conservancy
20 MaryBeth Dreusike Naval Support Activity Monterey
21 Mike McCullough Monterey One Water
22 Milas Smith City of Pacific Grove
23 Nick Becker Pebble Beach Community- Service District 24 Rick Boggs California State University Monterey Bay
25 Sarah Hardgrave Big Sur Land Trust
26 Scott Ottmar City of Seaside
27 Tom Harty Monterey County Resource Management Agency 28 Tom Reeves Big Sur Land Trust
29 Vishakha Atre EOA, Inc.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-28
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 927, Packet Page 1027 Public Meeting Summary
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-29
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 928, Packet Page 1028 Monterey Peninsula Region
Stormwater Resource Plan
The Monterey Regional Stormwater Management
Program (MRSWMP) invites you to provide feedback on
the Draft Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) for the
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey
Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Planning
Region.

The SWRP is a planning document that identifies public
lands (i.e., streets, parks, and municipal properties) where stormwater capture projects could potentially be
located to provide the most benefit. Stormwater
capture projects collect, store, and treat stormwater
runoff as well as dry weather flows such as excess
irrigation runoff. Potential environmental and
community benefits include:
 Providing water for other uses, such as irrigation,
 Recharging groundwater,
 Reducing local flooding, and
 Improving water quality in local creeks.

The Draft SWRP will be posted for public review on
June 25, 2018 at www.montereySEA.org. A 30-day
comment period will be provided.

Public Meeting Agenda
 Update on the SWRP development process and
its relationship to other regional water
management planning efforts.
 Overview of the process used to identify, evaluate,
and prioritize local and regional stormwater capture
projects.
 Presentation of conceptual designs for high
priority projects.

Wednesday,
June 27, 2018
5:30 pm – 7:00 pm
Venue
Colton Room,
Monterey Conference
Center,
1 Portola Plaza,
Monterey
RSVP: www.montereyswrp.eventbrite.com

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-30
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 929, Packet Page 1029 Monterey Peninsula Region
Stormwater Resource Plan
El Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program
(MRSWMP) lo invita a enviar comentarios el Draft
Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) para la Región de
Planificación del Manejo Integrado del Agua de la Península de Monterey, Carmel Bay y South Monterey Bay.

El SWRP es un documento de planificación que identifica tierras públicas (es decir, calles, parques y propiedades municipales) donde los proyectos de captura de aguas
pluviales podrían ubicarse para proporcionar el mayor
beneficio. Los proyectos de captura de aguas pluviales
recolectan, guardan y tratan la escorrentía de aguas pluviales, así como los flujos de clima seco como el exceso de agua que se escurre cuando uno riega. Los posibles beneficios ambientales y comunitarios incluyen:
 Proporcionar agua para otros usos, como el riego,
 Recargar agua subterránea,
 Reducir las inundaciones locales, y
 Mejorar la calidad del agua en arroyos locales.

El Draft SWRP se publicará para revisión pública el 25 de junio de 2018 en www.montereySEA.org. Se proporcionará
un período de comentarios de 30 días.

Agenda de reuniones públicas
 Actualización sobre el proceso de desarrollo de
SWRP y su relación con otros esfuerzos regionales de
planificación de la administración del agua.
 Descripción general del proceso utilizado para
identificar, evaluar y priorizar proyectos locales y
regionales de captura de aguas pluviales.
 Presentación de diseños conceptuales para proyectos
de alta prioridad
Miércoles,
27 de junio de
2018
5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.

Colton Room,
Monterey Conference
Center,
1 Portola Plaza,
Monterey
Nota: La reunión se llevará a cabo en inglés. Un traductor no estará disponible.

RSVP: www.montereyswrp.eventbrite.com
Aviso de reunión pública
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-31
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 930, Packet Page 1030 Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-32
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 931, Packet Page 1031

SPECIAL MEETING

NOTICE AND AGENDA
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE for the

MONTEREY REGIONAL STORM WATER

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (MRSWMP)
DATE: June 27, 2018
TIME: 5:30 p.m.

LOCATION: Monterey Conference Center, Colton Room, 1 Portola Plaza, Monterey, California NOTE: Under the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding for the Monterey Regional Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program {also referred to as the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program, (MRSWMP)}, the Management Committee (MC) was created to provide overall Program coordination, review, and budget oversight with respect to the NPDES permit.

The MC is to consider permit compliance, with majority concurrence of the Permittees (listed below as Participating Entities), as the primary objective in approving Program tasks and corresponding budgets. The MC is comprised of one representative from each of the Permittees. None of the representatives are elected officials or policy makers for the entities they represent.

Stakeholder feedback may either be provided during the “Public Comment” agenda item or the Program Manager may be contacted regarding any questions or feedback for the Management Committee. Responses to these items will be reported in the Management Committee Meeting Minutes. Should an interested stakeholder or a member of the public wish to make a presentation to the Group, the Program Manager should be contacted to schedule the presentation for a subsequent meeting.

Officers: Chairperson: Milas Smith, City of Pacific Grove Vice-Chairperson: Agnes Topp, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Participating Entities: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City of Del Rey Oaks City of Monterey City of Pacific Grove City of Sand City City of Seaside County of Monterey
Other Coordinating Entities:

Carmel Unified School District Pacific Grove Unified School District Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Pebble Beach Company Ex-Officio Members:

Association of Monterey Bay Governments Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

CALL TO ORDER

AGENDA ITEMS

1. Presentation on the Monterey Peninsula Region Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) and Meeting to Receive Public Comment on SWRP

ADJOURNMENT
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-33
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 932, Packet Page 1032 Stormwater Resource Plan for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Region Wednesday, June 27, 2018
5:30 pm – 7:00 pm
Colton Room, Monterey Conference Center,
1 Portola Plaza, Monterey

PRESENTATION
5:30 pm 1. Registration
5:35 pm
5:40 pm

2. Welcome

2. Introduction
• What is the Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP)?
• Why was it prepared?
• Who was involved?
• Purpose of public meeting
Milas Smith, Chair, MRSWMP
Jeff Condit,
Monterey One Water /
MRSWMP
5:50 pm 3. Overview of the SWRP
• Goals and Objectives
• Content Overview
Vishakha Atre,
EOA, Inc.
6:10 pm 4. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and Relationship to the SWRP
Sarah Hardgrave,
Big Sur Land Trust
6:25 pm 5. Overview of Conceptual Project Designs Lisa Welsh Geosyntec Consultants
6:35 pm 6. View and Discuss Conceptual Project Designs All attendees 6:55 pm 7. Closing Remarks Jeff Condit
7:00 pm 8. Adjourn Milas Smith
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-34
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 933, Packet Page 1033 Monterey Pennisula SWRP
Public Meeting
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
Attendance List
Name Organization
Agnes Topp City of Carmel by the Sea
Alison Imamura Monterey One Water
Diana Staines Denise Duffy and Associates
Elizabeth Geisler Dudek
Jeff Condit Monterey One Water
John Mukhar MNS Engineers
Lisa Welsh Geosyntec Consultants
Michael Johnson MNS Engineers
Robert Jaques Seaside Basin Watermaster
Sarah Hardgrave Big Sur Land Trust
Tricia Wotan City of Monterey
Vishakha Atre EOA, Inc.

Bob Siegfried Carmel Valley Association
Robert Guidi Department of Defense
Scott Ottmar City of Seaside
Tom Reeves Interested Party
Frank Pierce Carmel River Task Force
Gina Schmidt AMBAG
Bob Bourke Interested Party
Milas Smith City of Pacific Grove
Tom Harty Monterey County Resource Management
Nathan Agency Watson Engineers
John Hunt UC Davis
Riley Imamura Interested Party
Nathaniel M Watson Engineers
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-35
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 934, Packet Page 1034 Stormwater Resource Plan for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Region
Public Meeting
Wednesday, June 27, 2018, 5:30 pm – 7:00 pm

MEETING SUMMARY
Participants – Attendance list attached.
1) Welcome
Milas Smith (Chair, MRSWMP) welcomed attendees to the meeting. 2) Background
Jeff (Monterey One Water) updated attendees on the purpose of the Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) and the role of Monterey One Water, MRSWMP, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), consultant team, and stakeholders. He informed attendees that the purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview of the Draft SWRP, present conceptual project designs, and obtain initial feedback. Final comments are due to him by July 25, 2018. 3) Overview of the SWRP
Vishakha Atre (EOA) provided an overview of the SWRP chapters, and explained the methodology for identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing local and regional stormwater capture projects. The SWRP includes the following eight chapters that address the elements required by the State Board’s Storm Water Resource Plan Guidelines:

1. Introduction

2. Organization, Coordination, Collaboration

3. Watershed Identification

4. Water Quality Compliance

5. Quantitative Methods

6. Identification and Prioritization of Projects

7. Implementation Strategy and Schedule

8. Education, Outreach, Public Participation
The prioritization process identified approximately 2,200 project opportunities. A spreadsheet listing these potential projects as well as ranking feedback from the participating municipalities is included in Appendix E of the Public Draft SWRP. Appendix E is available as a separate link at www.MontereySea.org.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-36
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 935, Packet Page 1035 4) Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and Relationship to the SWRP Sarah Hardgrave (Big Sur Land Trust) informed attendees about the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and Southern Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan update and project solicitation process. The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) has initiated the process for the IRWM Plan update and will begin soliciting projects for the Proposition 1 IRWM Implementation Grant in July 2018. To receive grant funding, projects need to be either listed in the IRWM Plan project list, or applicants need to describe how the project has been vetted through the RWMG. The SWRP will be included in the IRWM plan and all potential projects identified in the SWRP will be eligible for grant funding. 5) SWRP Status
Lisa Welsh (Geosyntec) provided an overview of following seven projects selected by the TAC for conceptual design:

1. Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Stormwater Diversion

2. Lake El Estero Diversion to Sanitary Sewer

3. Monterey Tunnel Stormwater Diversion

4. Carmel-by-the-Sea Stormwater Diversion

5. David Avenue Stormwater Storage and Diversion

6. Del Monte Manor Park Infiltration

7. Drywell Aquifer Recharge Program
Attendees provided the following feedback:
 Ensure that project implementation is a collaborative effort. Identified projects should not be in conflict with each other.
 As other projects are designed, consider on-site runoff capture instead of off-site capture.  Consider including Phase II Permit requirements while designing projects.

Lisa provided the following clarifications based on questions from attendees:
 The conceptual project designs include information on construction, operation and maintenance costs.
 The conceptual project designs also include information on sizing treatment and capture facilities.
5) View and Discuss Conceptual Project Designs
Lisa informed attendees that the seven conceptual project designs are placed around the room on poster boards. Project proponents are also available to answer questions on specific projects.

Attendees viewed the project designs and discussed them with project proponents.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-37
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 936, Packet Page 1036 6) Adjourn
Jeff reminded attendees to send comments by July 25, 2018. The public meeting adjourned at 7:15 pm.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-38
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 937, Packet Page 1037 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
1 Monterey Peninsula
Stormwater Resource Plan
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
Presenters:

Jeff Condit, Monterey One Water / MRSWMP
Vishakha Atre, EOA
Sarah Hardgrave, Big Sur Land Trust
Lisa Welsh, Geosyntec
Presentation Agenda
 Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) Background
 Purpose of Public Meeting
 SWRP Overview
 Goals and Objectives
 Content
 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and
Relationship to the SWRP
 Conceptual Project Designs
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 2
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-39
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 938, Packet Page 1038 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
2 Background
 Monterey One Water was awarded a Prop 1 Stormwater
Planning Grant to develop a Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) on behalf of the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program
 The SWRP was developed for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water
Management Planning Region
 Start Date: July 2017
 Completion Date: December 2018
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 3
Project Team
 Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program
(MRSWMP) Sub-Committee
 Technical Advisory Committee
 Stakeholders
 Consultants:
 Geosyntec
 EOA, Inc.
 Denise Duffy & Associates
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 4
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-40
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 939, Packet Page 1039 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
3 What is a SWRP?
 A planning document that:
 Describes the local watershed
 Identifies water quality issues
 Identifies public lands (i.e., streets, parks, and municipal properties) where stormwater capture projects could potentially be located
 Evaluates and prioritizes potential projects to provide the most benefits
 Stormwater capture projects must be part of a SWRP to be eligible for grant funds from any State bond approved by voters (SB985). Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
Stormwater Capture and Treatment Projects
 Projects that collect, store, and treat stormwater runoff and dry weather flows (e.g., excess irrigation runoff):
 Use vegetation, soils, and natural processes that allow stormwater to soak into the soil, or
 Collect and divert stormwater and dry weather runoff to the sanitary sewer system for reuse (e.g., landscape irrigation)  These projects provide multiple benefits, such as:
 Providing water for other uses, such as irrigation,
 Recharging groundwater,
 Reducing local flooding, and
 Improving water quality in local creeks.
6 Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-41
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 940, Packet Page 1040 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
4 Monterey SWRP Purpose
 Following State-approved guidelines, develop a list of stormwater capture projects eligible for future State grant funds
 Provide 10% Conceptual Designs for seven selected projects  Provide 30% design and CEQA Checklist for top project  Conduct the Monterey Regional Water Recovery Study –
Examine the feasibility of establishing a Peninsula-wide water recovery and reclamation system
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 7
Purpose of Public Meeting
 Provide an overview of the Draft SWRP
 Present conceptual project designs
 Answer questions; obtain initial feedback
 Comments due by July 25, 2018 to Jeff Condit
[email protected]
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 8 6/27/18
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-42
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 941, Packet Page 1041 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
5 SWRP Goals and Objectives
 Conduct regional watershed-based planning to address
challenges and opportunities for managing stormwater and dry weather runoff
 Assist in the identification of new water supply sources for the Monterey Peninsula.
 Identify projects that use stormwater and dry weather runoff as a resource, and provide multiple benefits, such as:
 Improving water supply
 Improving water quality
 Flood control
 Environmental and community benefits
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 9
Overview of the SWRP
 Elements Required by the State Board’s
Storm Water Resource Plan Guidelines
 Organization, Coordination, Collaboration
 Watershed Identification
 Water Quality Compliance
 Quantitative Methods
 Identification and Prioritization of Projects
 Implementation Strategy and Schedule
 Education, Outreach, Public Participation
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 10
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-43
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 942, Packet Page 1042 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
6 Organization, Coordination, Collaboration
 Summary and role of the cooperating entities,
interested parties, Technical Advisory Committee, and
Stakeholder Group
 Coordination with regulatory authorities
 Coordination with the Integrated Regional Water
Management Group
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 11
Watershed Identification
 Overview of watersheds
 Carmel River Basin
 Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay
 Small Portion of Big Sur River
 Small Portion of El Toro/Salinas River
 Associated water quality and
quantity issues
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 12
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-44
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 943, Packet Page 1043 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
7 Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 13
Water Quality Issues
 Water bodies with water quality
concerns
 Monterey Harbor
 Majors Creek
 Tularcitos Creek
 Monterey State Beach
 Pacific Ocean at Stillwater Cove
 Stormwater pollutants of concern
 metals, bacteria, trash, etc.
 Previous actions towards water
quality protection
 SWRP water quality compliance
strategies
Methodology for Identifying Stormwater
Capture Projects
 Projects identified throughout the
region by:
 Stakeholder Planned Projects
 Geospatial Project Opportunity Analysis
 Water Recovery Study
 Projects classified by:
 Project scale (parcel based, regional,
right-of-way
 Facility type – water recovery,
bioretention, etc.
 Infiltration feasibility
14 Project Classification
Identified Potential Projects
Planned
Projects
GIS
Analysis
Water
Recovery
Study
Project Multi-Benefit Evaluation
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-45
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 944, Packet Page 1044 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
8 Methodology for Evaluating Stormwater Capture
Projects
 Evaluation of potential for project to provide multiple benefits (Table 10):
 Parcel Area or Street Type/Length
 Majority Land Use in Drainage Area
 Catchment Runoff Rate
 Catchment Slope
 Infiltration Feasibility
 Project Type
 Preliminary project ‘scores’ developed based on the criteria Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 15
Methodology for Prioritizing Stormwater
Capture Projects
 Project scores used to preliminarily rank projects
 Proponents/jurisdictions provided input on prioritization using additional institutional knowledge, such as:
 Funding availability
 Areas of proposed redevelopment
 Other local factors
 Project assigned ranks based on input
 Projects for conceptual design selected by TAC
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 16
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-46
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 945, Packet Page 1045 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
9 Prioritized Project List
 Prioritized Project List included in Appendix E
 Water Recovery Study projects - 241
 GIS analysis -377 parcel-based, 61 regional, and 1,609 right-of-way  Planned projects received from cooperating entities, interested parties, and stakeholders - 82
 All projects on the list are eligible for grant funding Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 17
Implementation Strategy and Schedule
 Potential funding sources for project implementation
 Entities responsible for project Implementation
 Community participation strategy
 Procedure for updating the SWRP
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 18
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-47
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 946, Packet Page 1046 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
10 Education, Outreach, Public Participation
 Stakeholder Outreach, Education, and Engagement
Plan
 Two Stakeholder Group meetings
 October 17, 2017
 February 8, 2018
 One Public meeting
 All materials are included in Appendix H
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 19
List of Appendices
 Appendix A: SWRP Self-Certification Checklist
 Appendix B: TAC Meeting Summaries
 Appendix C: Annotated List of Reviewed Data and Reports  Appendix D: Water Recovery Study Report
 Appendix E: Project Database
 Appendix F: Project Concept Designs
 Appendix G: 30% Design and CEQA Checklist for Hartnell Gulch
 Appendix H: Summary of Stakeholder Meetings
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 20
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-48
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 947, Packet Page 1047 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
11 Concept Project Designs
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 21
 1. Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Stormwater Diversion  2. Lake El Estero Diversion to Sanitary Sewer
 3. Monterey Tunnel Stormwater Diversion
 4. Carmel-by-the-Sea Stormwater Diversion
 5. David Avenue Stormwater Storage and Diversion
 6. Del Monte Manor Park Infiltration
 7. Drywell Aquifer Recharge Program
Concept Project Designs
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 6/27/18 22
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-49
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 948, Packet Page 1048 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
12 8/6/2018 23

1. Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Stormwater Diversion
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 8/6/2018 24

2. Lake El Estero Diversion to Sanitary Sewer
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-50
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 949, Packet Page 1049 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
13 8/6/2018 25

3. Monterey Tunnel Stormwater Diversion
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
8/6/2018 26

4. Carmel-by-the-Sea Stormwater Diversion
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-51
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 950, Packet Page 1050 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
14 8/6/2018 27

5. David Avenue Stormwater Storage and Diversion
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
8/6/2018 28

6. Del Monte Manor Park Infiltration
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-52
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 951, Packet Page 1051 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
15 8/6/2018 29

7. Drywell Aquifer Recharge Program
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
Thank you for
your participation!
 Public Draft SWRP posted at
www.MontereySea.org
 Comments due by July 25, 2018 to Jeff Condit
[email protected]
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-53
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 952, Packet Page 1052 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
16 Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 8/6/2018 31

1. Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Stormwater Diversion
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting 8/6/2018 32

2. Lake El Estero Diversion to Sanitary Sewer
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-54
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 953, Packet Page 1053 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
17 8/6/2018 33

3. Monterey Tunnel Stormwater Diversion
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
8/6/2018 34

4. Carmel-by-the-Sea Stormwater Diversion
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-55
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 954, Packet Page 1054 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
18 8/6/2018 35

5. David Avenue Stormwater Storage and Diversion
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
8/6/2018 36

6. Del Monte Manor Park Infiltration
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-56
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 955, Packet Page 1055 Monterey Peninsula SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
19 8/6/2018 37

7. Drywell Aquifer Recharge Program
Monterey Peninsula SWRP Public Meeting
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-57
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 956, Packet Page 1056 Monterey SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
1 Monterey Peninsula IRWMP
DWR Prop 1 Grant Update Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay
and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water
Management
Integrated Regional Water Management
(IRWM) is a collaborative effort to manage all
aspects of water resources in a region. IRWM
crosses jurisdictional, watershed, and political
boundaries; involves multiple agencies,
stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and
attempts to address the issues and differing
perspectives of all the entities involved
through mutually beneficial solutions.

What is IRWM?
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-58
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 957, Packet Page 1057 Monterey SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
2  Group formed in 2005
 2007 Plan
 2014 Plan Update
– $1M grant managed by
MPWMD
 RWMG hasn’t been
meeting since 2014
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay &
Southern Monterey Bay IRWM
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-59
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 958, Packet Page 1058 Monterey SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
3  Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District
 Monterey One Water
 Monterey County Water Resources
Agency
 Marina Coast Water District
 City of Monterey
 Resource Conservation District of
Monterey County
 Big Sur Land Trust
Current Regional Water
Management Group
Proposition 1, Water Quality, Supply, and
Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014
 Prop 1 authorized $510M for IRWM
 Disadvantaged Community Involvement
Program
– Not less than $51 million
– Awarded on non-competitive basis or direct expenditures  IRWM Implementation Grant Program
– Approximately $418 million for Implementation programs and projects
• $51 million to projects directly benefiting DACs)
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-60
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 959, Packet Page 1059 Monterey SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
4 Central Coast Prop 1 Funding
Total Available $43M
– $39.99M excluding
7% administration
costs.
– $4.3M Disadvantaged
Community
Involvement
– $4.3M Disadvantaged
Community
Implementation
– $31.39M
Implementation
Monterey Peninsula IRWM
Prop 1 Funding
 Central Coast Funding Area, Funding
Agreement
– 50% divided equally
– 25% divided by population
– 25% divided by acreage
 $4.33M to Monterey Peninsula RWMG
– 10% DAC Involvement & 10% DAC Projects
• City of Monterey Franklin Street Storm Drain
• MPWMD regional needs assessment
• MPWMD disadvantaged community water conservation
outreach
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-61
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 960, Packet Page 1060 Monterey SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
5 DWR’s Proposition 1 IRWM
Implementation Grant Schedule
 June/July 2018: Draft Project
Solicitation Package (PSP) released
 Fall 2018: Final PSP released
 (Likely) April 2019 - DWR Central
Coast Funding Area Workshop
 May 2019 - DWR follow up &
comments on proposed projects
 Summer 2019 - Application deadline
4-6 weeks after DWR comments
2018 IRWM Project Solicitation
and Plan Update Schedule
May: Kick off meeting & information request
June: Review of Goals and Objectives, Project Priorities July to Aug: Project concept proposals and/or more detailed proposals for grant application
August: Review of project submittals, prioritization process Fall (tbd): Focused meeting with Native American Tribal representatives
October: Stakeholder meeting for input on recommended
prioritized projects
November: Finalize project priorities for Prop 1 Grant application, begin review of IRWMP updates
Dec – Feb: RWMG approval of IRWMP update, incorporation of Stormwater Resource Plan
February: Submittal of IRWM Plan Update to DWR
April: DWR Central Coast Funding Area Workshop
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-62
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 961, Packet Page 1061 Monterey SWRP
Public Meeting
June 27, 2018
6  M1W coordinating with IRWM to
incorporate the SWRP into the IRWM plan
 Draft & Final SWRP to be received by the
RWMG in late summer/fall 2018
 RWMG to approve/accept SWRP into the
IRWMP no later than December 2018
(required for SWRP)
 M1W and MRSWMP will facilitate
implementation of the SWRP over time
How Does the Stormwater
Resource Plan Relate to IRWM?
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-63
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 962, Packet Page 1062 Public Comments Matrix
Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-64
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 963, Packet Page 1063 SWRP-Focused Comments
Comment Author Comment Section Topic Project Team Recommended Response 1 Jeff Krebs Please make sure the list of projects in the SRP includes Tom Reeves’ "Peninsula-wide integrated water augmentation study".

Install high flow tree box catch basin storm water filter in the Ramona curb and gutter, and connect it to an adjacent seepage pit. See this year’s NIP project submittal request that was funded. My goal will be to use my NIP money as a grant match and construct 5 of them, instead of just one.

Section 6.1 and
Project Database,
Appendix E
Proposed/Planned
Projects
Project will be added to the Project Database,
Appendix E. Number of total projects will be
updated in Section 6.1.
3 Bob
Siegfried
You did not explain how the pollutants will be removed from the Carmel Bay ASBS, only restating the process description. The issue is that the project description states that the process removes "any urban pollutants that are associated with the urban flows." This statement is correct only to the point that the pollutants are removed from the water that is delivered to Pebble Beach for golf course irrigation. The pollutants do not disappear following removal. They are discharged to the Carmel Bay ASBS through CAWD's outfall. The ASBS is the same destination at which the pollutants arrive if they are not sent to CAWD. The water supply aspects of the project benefit the community, and the loading to the ASBS remains unchanged. This project description error should be corrected so it does not claim benefits falsely.

Section 6.2/6.3
and
Appendix F
Project Concepts
Statements referring to removal of urban pollutants
associated with urban flows will be revised to
replace “removal” with “treatment”.

CAWD and RTP end-of-pipe discharge
analyses/review is not part of the SWRP scope and
will not be discussed in the SWRP.
4 Robert
Jaques
Three of the seven projects for which Conceptual Designs were prepared propose to use urban stormwater runoff to help recharge the Seaside Groundwater Basin. Aquifers in that Basin are a domestic water supply source. The Seaside Basin Watermaster is an arm of the Superior Court of Monterey County, created by the 2006 Adjudication Decision that governs the management of the Basin. One of the Watermaster’s principle roles is to ensure that the Basin is managed such that there is no degradation in water quality. Specifically, the Adjudication Decision contains this language with regard to water quality: The Watermaster will take any action within the Seaside Basin, including, but not limited to, capital expenditures and legal actions, which in the discretion of Watermaster is necessary or desirable to accomplish any of the following:
• Prevent contaminants from entering the Groundwater supplies of the Seaside Basin, which present a significant threat to the Groundwater quality of the Seaside Basin, whether or not the threat is immediate; Urban stormwater runoff typically contains numerous constituents that could be harmful to water quality. For this reason, the Watermaster would require that any such recharge project obtain from the Watermaster a permit to store water, via recharge, into the Basin. Obtaining a permit requires filing a storage application using the attached Storage Application template. The template was prepared for use by parties that are pumping (these are referred to as “Producers” in the Adjudication Decision), but I expect that the Watermaster Board would direct that we use the same application template for proposed recharge projects. If the Watermaster Board approves the application then the Watermaster would issue a permit to authorize the recharge to be performed. Please have this language added to the description of those three projects so that project proponents will be aware of this requirement if they decide to proceed with any of those projects.

Section 6.3 and
Del Monte Manor
Park and Drywell
Project Concepts,
Appendix F
Project Concepts
The following language will be added to the project
concepts for projects that propose to infiltrate
treated stormwater into the Seaside Groundwater
Basin (two projects, three proposed locations).
“Following the 2006 Adjudication Decision that
governs management of the Seaside Groundwater
Basin, implementation of this project would require
filing a storage application and obtaining a permit
from the Seaside Basin Watermaster to store water,
via recharge, in(to) the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

This permit is obtained through filing a Watermaster
Storage Application. The Wastermaster has the
authority to take the necessary actions to prevent
contaminants from entering the Groundwater
supplies of the Seaside Basin, which present a
significant threat to the Groundwater quality of the
Seaside Basin, whether or not the threat is
immediate.”
A copy of the Watermaster Storage Application will
also be included as an attachment to the project
concepts in Appendix F.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-65
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 964, Packet Page 1064 Comment Author Comment Section Topic Project Team Recommended Response 5 Agnes Topp
One thing I did notice on the project description for the Carmel stormwater diversion, which I'd missed earlier, is that the watershed on the northeast side of the project extends out beyond the limits of the City. Do you have access to TELR to see the limits of the watershed on the County side of the City limit? It's not a huge amount of additional acreage, but something like 30 or 40 acres of residential area though. If that part of the County isn't covered by TELR, let me know and I can give you a rough outline.

Carmel
Stormwater
Diversion Project
Concept,
Appendix F
Project Concepts
The TELR catchments are available for the City of
Carmel and unincorporated Monterey County
within the Carmel stormwater diversion project Rio
Park Expansion watershed and were reviewed for
the SWRP.

No revision needed.
6 Patrick
Treanor Jurisdiction listed should be City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Carmel Area Wastewater District.

Section 6.3 and
Carmel
Stormwater
Diversion Project
Concept,
Appendix F
Project Concepts
The jurisdiction for the Carmel stormwater
diversion project will be listed as, “City of Carmelby-the-Sea and Carmel Area Wastewater District.” 7 Patrick
Treanor
Dry weather runoff is probably minor and would occur when the system has lots of capacity; so I would say that would be feasible. - Project Concepts
We thank the commenter for the input.

No revision needed.
8 Patrick
Treanor
“First flush” flows would need to be calculated as instantaneous flows using Time of Concentration to determine Intensity to determine Runoff Flow. Because the flow criteria is determined on an annual volume basis (not instantaneous flow) I am not able to tell you what percent of the “first flush” flows could be diverted to the sewer.

I understand that this is conceptual so I guess it doesn’t really matter at this stage.

Section 6.4 Project Concepts
The first flush was assumed to be equivalent to the
85th percentile storm event for concept sizing. This
detail will be added to Section 6.4
9 Public
Meeting
Comment
Ensure that project implementation is a collaborative effort. Identified projects should not be in conflict with each other.

Section 5.2.1 and
Appendix D,
Water Recovery
Study Section

3.3.6, Table 9, and
Appendix C
Project
Identification and
Implementation
Project footprints were identified through geospatial
analysis as described in Section 5.2.1. Project
footprints do not overlap; project drainage areas may
overlap. Overlapping drainage areas were identified
in the Water Recovery Study as described in
Appendix D of the SWRP - Section 3.3.6, Table 9,
and Appendix C.

Prior to moving forward with project design,
overlapping drainage areas may need to be
considered. This level of coordination is outside of
the SWRP Scope of Work.

No revision needed.
10 Public
Meeting
Comment
As other projects are designed, consider on-site runoff capture instead of off-site capture. Section 5.3 Project Identification
On-site runoff capture was considered as part of
project identification for all projects (along with offsite runoff capture, as applicable). Project identification is described in Section 5.3. Project
sizing for all projects is outside of the SWRP Scope
of Work.

No revision needed.
11 Public
Meeting
Comment
Consider including Phase II Permit requirements while designing projects. Section 6.4 Project Concepts As described in Section 6.4, project sizing did
consider Phase II permit requirements.

No revision needed.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-66
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 965, Packet Page 1065 Water Recovery Study-Focused Comments
Comment Author Comment Section Topic Project Team Response 12 Tom Reeves What will be the demand for potable water in 50 years? - Policy Comment is outside of the SWRP and Water Recovery Study Scope of Work.

No revision needed.
13 Tom Reeves If that demand can be met by desalination, is there a better/less expensive alternative? SWRP
Appendix D,
Water
Recovery Study
Section 2 and

3.2 Alternative
Water Supply
Project Types
The technical-based identification/selection of stormwater capture method is provided and described in Section 2 of the Water Recovery Study.

Planning level unit project cost ranges are provided in Section

3.2. Cost range comparison to typical costs for desalination is provided.

Policy/economic-based selection of alternative water supply capture methods is outside of the SWRP and Water Recovery Study Scope of Work.

No revision needed.
14 Tom Reeves If stormwater and urban runoff can provide all or a portion of source water, how much of that source water do we need? - Policy
Comment is outside of the SWRP and Water Recovery Study Scope of Work.

No revision needed.
15 Tom Reeves
If there are physical limits to how much urban runoff/stormwater we can utilize, what are those limits? Can those limits be changed by the building of new infrastructure or if in the case of a regulatory/permitting restriction, changing those limits?
SWRP
Appendix D,
Water
Recovery Study
Section 2,

3.3.3, and 4.2
Water
Infrastructure
Improvements
The scope of the Water Recovery Study included an
examination of feasible sources, as described in Section 2.

Permitting complexity related to sources was examined and provided in Section 3.3.3.

A discussion of infrastructure/storage improvements is
provided in Section 4.2.

A detailed analysis of the supply limits of identified sources is outside of the scope of the Water Recovery Study/SWRP.

No revision needed.
16 Tom Reeves What is the economic tipping point at which building those improvements makes utilizing urban runoff/stormwater uneconomical? - Policy
Comment is outside of the SWRP and Water Recovery Study Scope of Work.

No revision needed.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-67
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 966, Packet Page 1066 Comment Author Comment Section Topic Project Team Response 17 Tom Reeves
If surface water reservoirs are to play a part in utilizing urban runoff/stormwater, how can those limited impoundments most efficiently be used? (Who would manage those reservoirs? How could they be managed to maximize yield?)
SWRP
Appendix D,
Water
Recovery Study
Section 2.1,
Policy
Reservoir management improvements are discussed in
Section 2.1.

Reservoir management responsibilities are outside of the scope of the Water Recovery Study/ SWRP.

No revision needed.
18 Tom Reeves If urban runoff/stormwater is a viable source of water, how best do we distribute the benefit back to the various communities who are cooperating? - Policy
The captured stormwater is being directed to the RTP/CAWD WWTP or recharged. Distribution would occur per
mechanisms proposed/underway at the RTP/CAWD WWTP
and through management of water supply aquifers.

Agreements for Water Rights may need to be negotiated.

This comment is outside of the SWRP and Water Recovery
Study Scope of Work.

No revision needed.
19 Tom Reeves
What’s the best way to treat and store urban runoff/stormwater so that it can be used for potable purposes (should it go to a regional plant? Are there opportunities for smaller satellite treatment systems? Are there opportunities for injecting treated water into aquifers that are unfit for drinking without treatment by pushing those non-potable waters aside with the injected water as has been done in other parts of the US?) SWRP
Appendix D,
Water
Recovery
Study, Section
2 and 4.2
Alternative
Water Supply
Project Types
and Water
Infrastructure
Improvements
Options for storage and treatment of captured stormwater and dry weather runoff is discussed in Section 2 and 4.2.

Policy/economic-based decisions related to alternative water supply capture methods are outside of the SWRP and Water Recovery Study Scope of Work.

No revision needed.
20 Tom Reeves How close can the Cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey come to achieving the SWRCB’s goal of zero discharge?
SWRP, Section

4.2.2 and 4.2.6 Policy
As stated in the SWRP Section 4.2.2, “As summarized in the Monterey Peninsula IRWMP (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014),
the ASBS Special Protections generally include the
elimination of dry weather runoff to the ASBS, developing measures to prevent wet weather runoff from altering natural water quality in the ASBS, and conducting adequate
monitoring to examine if natural water quality and the marine life beneficial use is protected.” Plans to reduce dry and wet weather flows to the Pacific Grove ASBS are discussed in the SWRP Section 4.2.6. This comment is outside of the SWRP and Water Recovery Study Scope of Work.

No revision needed.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-68
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 967, Packet Page 1067 Comment Author Comment Section Topic Project Team Response 21 Tom Reeves
If unused allocations from the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) are more than the regional sewage treatment plant can handle in the winter season, then are there alternatives to treating urban runoff/stormwater during the winter (and likely throughout the year) that wouldn’t rely on the existing sewage treatment system? SWRP
Appendix D,
Water
Recovery
Study, Section

3.1 and 4.2
Water
Infrastructure
Improvements
The projects proposed as part of the Water Recovery Study assume some combination of first flush, wet weather, and dry weather flow capture as discussed in Section 3.1. For some cases, infrastructure improvements to capture additional wet weather flows for supplementary supply are discussed in Section 4.2.

An analysis of the ability of the RTP/CAWD WWTP to
receive wet weather flows is outside of the SWRP and Water Recovery Study scope of work.

No revision needed.
22 Tom Reeves
If Salinas’ agricultural wash water is a good source of water for treatment, what does that mean in terms of allocating potable water credits to the Peninsula communities (does that great source of water take all of the capacity away? Is there an allocation of capacity in place so that Peninsula communities can share in the benefits?)
- Policy
This comment is outside of the SWRP and Water Recovery
Study Scope of Work.

No revision needed.

Appendix H: Stakeholder Outreach H-69
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 968, Packet Page 1068

APPENDIX I
IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 969, Packet Page 1069 APPENDIX I: IRWMP DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS
This Appendix includes decision support tools relating to prioritizing and funding of projects and/or project opportunities listed in the final SWRP that are included as part of IRWMP project lists for project implementation.

These items are provided on the following pages of this appendix:

1. Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update, Chapter 6: Project Review Process ................................................... I-2

2. Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Program Application Form for Implementation Projects and Concept Proposals 2018/2019 ................................................................................................................................... I-11

3. Proposition 1 Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Round 1 Implementation Grant Project Solicitation Schedule 2018/2019 .................................................................................... I-24 ****
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 970, Packet Page 1070 I-1
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South
Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan Update, Chapter 6: Project
Review Process
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 971, Packet Page 1071 I-2
Chapter 6 Project Review Process
IRWM Standard 6
The IRWM Plan must contain a process or processes to select projects for inclusion in the IRWM Plan. The selection process(es) must include the following components:
• Procedures for submitting a project to the RWMG
• Procedures for review of projects considered for inclusion into the IRWM Plan. These procedures must, at a minimum, consider the following factors:
o How the project contributes to the IRWM Plan objectives o How the project is related to resource management strategies selected for use in the IRWM Plan o Technical feasibility of the project
o Specific benefits to DAC water issues
o Environmental Justice (EJ) considerations
o Project costs and financing
o Economic feasibility, including water quality and water supply benefits and other expected benefits and costs
o Project status
o Strategic considerations for IRWM Plan implementation o Contribution of the project in adapting to the effects of climate change in the region o Contribution of the project in reducing GHG emissions as compared to project alternatives o Whether the Project Proponent has adopted or will adopt the IRWM Plan o For IRWM regions that receive water supplied from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, how the project or program will help reduce dependence on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for water supply (not applicable to Monterey Peninsula Region)
• Procedures for displaying the list(s) of selected projects Review factors must be evaluated for each project and compared for all projects in a systematic manner. The results should be used to promote and prioritize projects in the selection process, while keeping in consideration the unique goals and objectives of the IRWM Region.

6.1 Procedures for Submitting a Project for Inclusion in the IRWM Plan Prioritization of projects is a required element of an IRWM Plan and aids regional decision-making on issues such as project sequencing and quantitative allocations of limited financial, economic, social, and natural resources. Consistent with IRWMP standards, projects that utilize multiple water management strategies, meet Regional priorities, accomplish multiple objectives, and are feasible score higher and are more likely to move forward during implementation of the Plan.

This IRWM Plan incorporates a process to include a large number of stakeholder-sponsored projects with the potential for significant cost; however, given the scope and cost of some of the projects, it is unlikely that all projects can be fully funded by both local and State IRWM funds in the immediate future. Project sponsors may need to seek alternative funding sources in order to close funding gaps.

For the 2007 IRWM Plan, the Stakeholder Group and Technical Advisory Committee developed a system to compare and prioritize projects with vastly different characteristics. A 100-point system was used to evaluate the suite of selected projects, with each project evaluated both against other projects and on whether a project would meet measurable regional objectives. Project characteristics that were deemed more important to the Region were allocated more points. Points were awarded in four different categories – water management strategies, objectives, regional priorities, technical and financial Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 972, Packet Page 1072 I-3
feasibility, and readiness to proceed. The result was an evaluation that describes both the strengths and weaknesses of each project and the project package as a whole. The categories and distribution of points used during project evaluation is outlined in section 6.1.2 and 6.1.3.

The Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) solicited projects for inclusion in the 2013 Update to the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan with a goal of creating a comprehensive project list that included concept proposals and projects that were prioritized and ready to implement.

The projects included in this IRWM Plan are consistent with Plan objectives. All projects were required to undergo a thorough review process before they could be formally included in the IRWM Plan. Figure 6-1 shows an overview of the process.

For inclusion in the plan, Project Proponents were required to first complete a short concept proposal form. Proposals that met eligibility criteria were included in the IRWM Plan Update and were moved to Step 2, allowing their project to be ranked (or prioritized). Concept proposals were required to meet the following minimum eligibility criteria to be included in the IRWM plan. The concept proposal will:
• assist the Monterey Peninsula region in achieving at least one of its IRWM Plan objectives, • implement at least one of the region’s Resource Management Strategies, • provide water resource benefits to the region, and
• be consistent with Proposition 84 IRWM Guidelines and Department of Water Resources standards and requirements.

The concept proposal form was available for download starting in the first quarter of 2013 and could be completed and emailed to the MPWMD by accessing a PDF file located on the MP IRWM website. As of approximately March 1, 2013, the new website1 was ready and the on-line form was available. Projects 1 www.mpirwm.org
Figure 6-1: Project Solicitation Process for 2013 IRWM Plan (Update) Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 973, Packet Page 1073 I-4
and proposals included in the 2007 Monterey Peninsula IRWM Plan were not automatically included in the 2013 IRWM Plan unless a concept proposal form was completed. The Project Proponent was required to follow specific steps in order to submit a project:
• complete a concept proposal for each project
• ensure the project information was up to date
• respond to requests for information within the established deadline • request that a project be removed if it was no longer being pursued Projects submitted to the plan as concept proposals are contained in Appendix 6-a.

6.1 Project Review Procedure

6.1.1 Detailed Project Solicitation and Scoring/Ranking (Step 2) Project Proponents were not required to complete Step 2 in order to be included in the IRWM Plan.

However, a detailed project submittal was required to be completed in order to be eligible for inclusion in an implementation grant application to the IRWM Grant Program and to be ranked in the plan.

Step 2 included submittal of detailed project information using a web-based “Project Solicitation Form” as described below that allowed detailed objective scoring and results in an overall ranked or prioritized list of projects. Projects were added to the Project List by the Project Proponent(s) and in the first quarter of 2014, stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the ranked list of projects through an email announcement of their availability on the mpirwm.org website. In the case of multientity projects, a lead entity or “Project Proponent” was required to be designated. For projects to be ranked and prioritized, Project Proponents were required to complete and submit the detailed Project Solicitation Form available at www.mpirwmp.org no later than July 19, 2013. 2 To remove a project, the
Project Proponent was required to submit a written request for removal to the RWMG. The request for removal must include: the project title, consent to remove the project from all project lists, and the reason for removal of the project. In the event of multi-entity projects, all entities must agree in writing to a project’s removal from the IRWM Plan. However, no projects were removed during the project ranking process or preparation of this plan update.

Each project was ranked based on a score developed from answers on the Project Solicitation Form, which included a methodology for scoring that is summarized below. Two categories of factors were included in the scoring: (1) factors related to how well the project complied with the IRWM Plan, such as policy consistency and ability to assist the region in meeting its goals, and (2) factors related to the individual merits of the project, such as feasibility, readiness to proceed, and costs. Scores from each of these categories comprised one-half of the overall project score as shown in Figure 6-2. A detailed description of project scoring criteria, factors, relative weighting, and raw scoring is provided below. 2 Detailed Project Solicitation forms were available at the MP IRWMP website March 1, 2013.

Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 974, Packet Page 1074 I-5
Figure 6-2: Relative Weighting: Plan Compliance vs. Project Merit Factors

6.1.2 IRWM Plan Compliance Factors (50% of total score) Within the Plan Compliance category, projects were scored based upon the following specific factors and the relative weighting is shown in Figure 6-3. Following each factor, (in italics) is the methodology used to assign raw scores to projects based upon the project information submitted in the Project Solicitation Form. The appropriate weighting factor was applied to the raw score to give a weighted score to be used in the overall ranking.

Figure 6-3: Relative Weighting of Plan Compliance Factors Plan
Compliance
Factors
50%
Project
Merit
Factors
50%
Plan Objectives
40%
Resource
Management
Strategies
20%
Strategic
Considerations
20%
Climate Change
Adaptation
5%
Reducing GHG
Emissions /Energy
Efficiency
5%
Benefits to DAC &
Native Americans
5%
Environmental
Justice
5%
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 975, Packet Page 1075 I-6
• How the project contributed to the IRWM Plan Objectives (40% of Plan Compliance Factors) o Number of objectives and high priority objectives that the project addressed Up to 53 points: Each project received one (1) point for meeting each of 26 objectives (26 max points). Plus, up to an additional 3 points could be received if specific metrics of each of the nine (9) high priority objectives were met.
• How the project related to Resource Management Strategies (20% of Plan Compliance Factors) o Number of different California Water Plan Management Outcome Categories and number of strategies that the project included.

Total of up to 35 points, including 1 point per RMS, plus one point for every CWP management outcome category.
• Strategic considerations for IRWM Plan implementation and project merit (20% of Plan Compliance Factors)
o Inter-Regionalism: Did the project involve active inter-regional collaboration or partnerships?
5 points: project addresses inter-regional issues
o Partnerships: How many entities were actively partnering to implement the project? 5 points: project involved three or more partners that included both government agencies and NGOs; or
2 points: project involved two or more partners: 0 points: project involved only one entity (no partnerships).
o Monitoring and reporting of project performance: Would the project establish and document achievement of the performance criteria?
5 points: project presents a plan for monitoring/reporting performance o Integration with land use planning: Was the project consistent with local plans, ordinances, and standards? Did the project integrate with local land use and water planning? Did the project increase coordination between water resources agencies and land use planners? 5 points: if "yes" to all three questions; 3 points if "Yes" to 2 questions; 1 point for "yes" to one question
• Specific benefits to critical disadvantaged community (DAC) and/or Native American tribal communities’ water issues (5% of Plan Factors)
o Did the proposed project provide specific benefits to solve critical DAC water issue(s)? Yes: 5 points
• Environmental Justice considerations (5% of Plan Factors) o Did the project redress inequitable distribution of environmental burdens and/or improve access to environmental goods?
Yes: 5 points
• Contribution to climate change adaptation (5% of Plan Factors) Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 976, Packet Page 1076 I-7
o Would the project contribute to regional adaptation to projected climate change impacts? Does the project propose to implement one or more of the recommendations from the document: “Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay” (Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation and the Southern Monterey Bay Coastal Erosion Working Group, May 2012)?
5 points: one point for every adaptation strategy implemented • Contribution of the project in reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions as compared to project alternatives (5% of Plan Factors)
o Compared to project alternatives, would the project reduce regional GHG emissions and/or improve energy efficiency?
5 points: one point for every GHG mitigation strategy implemented

6.1.3 Project Merit Factors (50% of total score)
Within the Project Merit category, projects were scored based upon the following specific factors with the relative weighting shown in Figure 6-4. Similar to the plan compliance factors, the italic text describes the proposed methodology used to assign raw scores. These factors are based upon the project information submitted in the Project Solicitation Form (and prior to applying the weighting agreed upon at the October 24, 2012 stakeholder meeting).

Figure 6-4: Relative Weighting of Project Merit Factors • Technical Feasibility (30% of Project Merit Factors)
o Was a common and widely accepted technology with well-documented results being used? o Were geologic conditions, hydrology, ecology, and other system aspects adequately described?
o Were there significant data gaps?
o Were there sufficient technical data to indicate the project is likely to result in success? o Was there enough information to support the project’s estimated benefits? 30 points: technical feasibility was documented in a project-specific pilot study or previous phase or has a documented track record of success
-- OR score for each of the following –
10 points: technology proposed has been established as effective in similar situations; Technical
Feasibility
30%
Project
Costs and
Financing
20%
Economic
Feasibility
25%
Project
Status
25%
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 977, Packet Page 1077 I-8
10 points: project site conditions were documented (geology/soil, ecology, hydrology, land use, public utilities;
10 points: project partners have experience with similar projects (e.g., similar site, similar technology).
• Project Costs and Financing (20% of Project Merit Factors) o 10 points: A project cost estimate was prepared and documented in the Project Form. o 10 points: There was an identified revenue source of at least 25% match funding. • Economic Feasibility (25% of Project Merit Factors)
o 15 points: Project benefits and costs were defined at a level of detail that would allow costeffectiveness analysis or benefit-cost analysis -- OR – project is a DAC project. o 10 points: Project had a cost-effectiveness or benefit-cost ratio greater than 1. • Project Status (25% of Project Merit Factors)
o What steps in project planning were completed?
 Feasibility Studies and Conceptual Plans
 CEQA/NEPA Completed
 Local Cost Share Confirmed
 Right-of-way / Land Acquisition
 Permits Acquired
 Construction Drawings Complete & Bids Acquired
(4 points for each of the above criterion met for a possible total of 24 points)

6.2 Procedures for Communicating Selected Projects
This plan and the mpirwm.org website contains the projects that were submitted to the plan, including concept proposals aimed at increasing collaboration and integration and projects that were submitted using the detailed solicitation form to be ranked. The project ranking process was developed in collaboration with the stakeholders, vetted through the RWMG members, and is described in this chapter. An email announcement of the availability of the preliminary project rankings was sent to RWMG members and stakeholders on January 14, 2014. The email and attachments are included in Appendix 6-b. The full detail of the projects submitted to the plan for ranking is in Appendix 6-c. The Monterey Peninsula IRWM website (www.mpirwm.org) contains information on the upcoming solicitations for grant programs and how to include projects in future plan updates. Table 6-1 shows the results of the project ranking process.

Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 978, Packet Page 1078 I-9
Table 6-1: Results of Project Prioritization
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 979, Packet Page 1079 I-10
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South
Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water
Management Program Application Form for
Implementation Projects and Concept Proposals
2018/2019
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 980, Packet Page 1080 I-11

MONTEREY PENINSULA, CARMEL BAY AND SOUTH MONTEREY BAY

INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

APPLICATION FORM FOR IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS AND CONCEPT PROPOSALS 2018/2019

SECTION I. PROJECT SUMMARY AND IRWM OBJECTIVES

1. Project Proponent (Name of Organization Applying):

2. Type of Entity:

Local Public agency Nonprofit organization Public Utility Mutual Water Company Federally Recognized or State Indian Tribe

3. Name and Title of Contact Person:

4. Phone:

5. Email:

6. Project Title:

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

Both implementation project proposals and concept proposals are being accepted at this time. Only implementation projects, however, will be eligible for IRWM Implementation Grant funds.

For concept proposals: If you would like to submit a concept proposal, you need only complete Sections I and II of this application.

For implementation projects: There will be two rounds of Proposition 1 IRWM Implementation Grant solicitations (Round 1 in early 2019, Round 2 in 2020). If you are interested in having your project considered for Round 1, you must complete all sections of this application. If you are not interested in having your project considered for Round 1, you need only complete Sections I and II.

For those interested in applying for Round 1: In addition to this application form, stakeholders who are interested in having their projects considered for Round 1 must also complete DWR’s Project Information Form. The Project Information Form will be due on February 8, 2019.

Both this form (“Project Application Form”) and DWR’s form (“Project Information Form”) should be submitted to:

Maureen Hamilton, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District - [email protected] THIS APPLICATION FORM IS DUE January 14, 2018
THE PROJECT INFORMATION FORM IS DUE FEBRUARY 8, 2019
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 981, Packet Page 1081 I-12

7. Type of Proposal: Is your project an implementation project (developed, with budget) or a concept proposal? Implementation project
Concept proposal

8. Project Summary: Briefly describe your project (one paragraph):

9. Project Location: Projects must be located within the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay IRWM region,1 or otherwise be of direct benefit to the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay IRWM region. Where is your project located?

10. IRWM Criteria
To be eligible for inclusion in the IRWM Plan, projects must include one or more of the following elements.

Please check all that apply:

Water reuse and recycling for non-potable reuse and direct and indirect potable reuse Water-use efficiency and water conservation
Local and regional surface and underground water storage, including groundwater aquifer cleanup or recharge projects
Regional water conveyance facilities that improve integration of separate water systems Watershed protection, restoration, and management projects, including projects that reduce the risk of wildfire or improve water supply reliability
Storm water resource management, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Projects to reduce, manage, treat, or capture rainwater or storm water • Projects that provide multiple benefits such as water quality, water supply, flood control, or open space • Decision support tools that evaluate the benefits and costs of multi-benefit storm water projects • Projects to implement a storm water resource plan
Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater storage facilities Water desalination projects
Decision support tools to model regional water management strategies to account for climate change and other changes in regional demand and supply projections Improvement of water quality, including drinking water treatment and distribution, groundwater and aquifer remediation, matching water quality to water use, wastewater treatment, water pollution prevention, and management of urban and agricultural runoff Regional projects or programs as defined by the IRWM Planning Act 1 The Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWM region includes: land areas within the San Jose Creek and Carmel River watersheds, portions of the Seaside Groundwater Basin and former Fort Ord, and most of the Monterey Peninsula (the Greater Monterey County region includes and runs north from Marina, as well as all most remaining areas of Monterey County, with the exception of Pajaro Valley).

Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 982, Packet Page 1082 I-13

11. IRWM Plan Objectives
The following objectives have been identified for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay IRWM Plan. Please select all of the objectives that the project will address, and very briefly explain (unless it is entirely obvious) how your project will address each objective. (For concept proposals, you need not provide the justification.)
Objective Justification
Water Supply Goal
WS-1. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.

WS-2. Maximize use of recycled water and other reuse and where feasible, expand sewer services to areas with onsite systems to increase sources of water for recycling.*
WS-3. Develop opportunities for stormwater capture and reuse pursuant to the Stormwater Resource Plan.

WS-4. Evaluate, advance, or create water conservation
throughout the Region.*
WS-5. Improve water supplies to achieve multiple benefits, beneficial uses and environmental flows.

WS-6. Seek long-term sustainable supplies for adopted future demand estimates.

WS-1. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.

Water Quality Goal
WQ-1. Improve inland surface water quality for environmental resources (e.g. steelhead), including headwaters and tributaries of streams, and to protect potable water supplies.*
WQ-2. Improve ocean water quality, including, but not limited to, Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), by minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges.

WQ-3. Protect and improve water quality in groundwater basins, especially where at risk from seawater intrusion.

Flood Protection Goal
FP-1. Develop regional projects and plans necessary to protect critical infrastructure and sensitive habitats from flood damage and sea level rise, in particular, along the Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay shoreline.*
FP-2. Develop approaches for floodplain restoration or adaptive management that minimize maintenance and repair
requirements (sustainable flood management systems).

FP-3. Promote floodplain restoration that protect quality and availability of water while preserving or restoring ecologic and stream function.

FP-4. Provide community benefits beyond flood protection, such as public access, open space, recreation, agricultural
preservation, and economic development.*
Coastal and Streamside Erosion Goal
CSE-1. Manage areas along the shoreline susceptible to erosion, including long-term strategic retreat where appropriate.

CSE-2. Identify opportunities to restore natural stream function, including meandering, in the lower 15 miles of the Carmel River and selected tributaries.

Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 983, Packet Page 1083 I-14
CSE-3. Reduce or prevent adverse downcutting in the main stem Carmel River and its tributaries.

Watershed Management Goal
WM-1. Reduce human-induced sources of non-point fine
sediment runoff.

WM-2. Restore natural fire frequency in headwater forests.

WM-3. Restore the natural hydrologic flow regime in disturbed watersheds where appropriate, including low impact
development strategies in urbanized areas.

WM-4. Re-establish a natural level of sediment supply within the Carmel River and its tributaries.

Environmental Protection and Enhancement
EV-1. Protect and enhance sensitive species and their habitats in the regional watersheds*; including, but not limited to, promoting the steelhead recovery by meeting accepted or approved environmental flows within the regional watersheds. .

EV-2. Assess, protect, enhance, and/or restore natural resources, including consideration of climate change, when developing water management strategies and projects.*
EV-3. Minimize adverse effects on biological and cultural resources when implementing strategies and projects.

EV-4. Identify opportunities for open spaces, trails and parks along streams and other recreational areas in the watershed that can be incorporated into projects.*
EV-5. Identify and integrate elements from appropriate Federal and State species protection and recovery plans.

EV-6. Promote watershed activities for fire fuel management and adaptive management strategies to protect water quality and water supplies from catastrophic wildfires.*
Climate Change Goal
CC-1. Implement adaptation measures and mitigation solutions to climate change effects, including increased large storm intensity and/or frequency, sea level rise, drought and wildfire.

CC-2. Support increased education, monitoring and research to increase understanding of long-term impacts of climate change in the region.

CC-3. Increase energy conservation measures and alternatives to fossil fuel and non-renewable resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with water and wastewater facility operations and IRWM projects.

Regional Communication and Cooperation Goal
RC-1. Identify cooperative, integrated strategies for protecting both infrastructure and environmental resources, including from climate change impacts.

RC-2. Foster collaboration among regional entities as an alternative to litigation through ongoing meetings of the RWMG and regional data sharing.

RC-3. Identify and pursue additional opportunities for public education, outreach, and communication on water resource management and climate change, including to disadvantaged communities and stakeholders with interests in water
management issues.

RC-4. Build relationships with State and Federal regulatory agencies and other water forums and agencies.

Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 984, Packet Page 1084 I-15
SECTION II. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE This section is required for all implementation projects. If your project is a concept proposal, there is no need to complete this section.

12. Do you want your implementation project to be considered for Round 1? Yes
No

13. Resource Management Strategies
One of the goals of integrated regional water management planning is to encourage diversification of water management approaches. Please select the strategies that your project will use (check all that apply):

Reduce Water Demand
Agricultural Water Use Efficiency
Urban Water Use Efficiency
Improve Operational Efficiency and Transfers
Conveyance
System Reoperation
Water Transfers
Infrastructure Reliability
Increase Water Supply
Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage
Desalination
Precipitation Enhancement
Recycled Municipal Water
Surface Storage
Storm Water Capture and Management
Improve Water Quality
Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution
Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation
Matching Water Quality to Use
Pollution Prevention
Salt and Salinity Management
Urban Runoff Management
Water and Wastewater Treatment
Practice Resources Stewardship
Agricultural Lands Stewardship
Economic Incentives
Ecosystem Restoration
Forest Management
Land Use Planning and Management
Recharge Area Protection
Water-Dependent Recreation
Sediment Management
Watershed Management
Environmental and Habitat Protection and
Improvement
Wetlands Enhancement and Creation
Improve Flood Management
Flood Risk Management
People and Water
Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants, and Water
Pricing)
Outreach, Engagement, and Education
Water and Culture
Water-Dependent Recreation
Regional Cooperation
Recreation and Public Access
Other Resource Management Strategies
Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure
Desalination
Fog Collection
Rainfed Agriculture
Monitoring and Research
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 985, Packet Page 1085 I-16

14. Climate Change Adaptation
a) Does your project contribute to climate change adaptation? If so, what climate change vulnerabilities in the region does your project respond to, specifically? Please describe how, and to what extent.

Vulnerabilities for the region are described in Chapter 15 of the 2014 IRWM Plan. This chapter can be downloaded at: http://www.mpirwm.org/IRWM%20Library/IRWMPlan%20Final_whole.pdf

b) Does your project consider the effects of sea level rise on water supply conditions and identify suitable adaptation measures?
c) Does the project take into consideration changes in the amount, intensity, timing, quality and variability of runoff and recharge?

15. Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs)
a) Please describe the extent to which your project will help reduce GHGs, compared to project alternatives. To assist you in estimating GHG emissions, please use the California Emissions Estimator Tool (CalEEMod) on the Greater Monterey County IRWM website: http://www.greatermontereyirwmp.org/performance/.

b) If appropriate, describe the extent to which the project will help the region reduce GHGs over the next 20 years.
c) To what extent will the project help reduce energy consumption, especially the energy embedded in water use, and ultimately reduce GHG emissions?
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 986, Packet Page 1086 I-17
SECTION III. PROJECT AND BUDGET NARRATIVE
Complete this and the following sections only if you would like your project to be considered for Round 1 Implementation Grant funds.

16. Project Description (1 page or so): Please describe the proposed project. Provide a general discussion of the problem the project addresses, and describe major tasks/activities. Include any other information that supports the justification for this project, including how the project can achieve any claimed benefits.

17. Project Need/Urgent Need: Is there a special, urgent, or critical need for your project? If so, explain.

18. Budget: Please complete the following budget table.

Non-State
Cost Share2
Requested
Grant Amount
Other State
Cost Share
Total Cost
(a) Project Admin
(b) Land Purchase/Easement
(c) Planning/Design/
Engineering/Environmental
(d) Construction/
Implementation
(e) Total

19. Budget Justification: Please provide a budget justification. What is the basis for your costs? (For the final application to DWR, you will need to provide documentation, such as quotes, to justify your budget.)

20. Cost Share: DWR requires that proposals provide at minimum 50% non-State cost share. DWR awards additional points for proposals that provide more than the required 50% non-State cost share. Describe your cost share, and sources of cost share funds.

Please also state whether your agency can contribute to any costs that may be associated with the cost of preparing the final Prop 1 grant application, if any.

21. Disadvantaged Communities: Does the project provide direct water‐related benefits to a project area entirely comprised of Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) and/or Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs)? If so, explain. (If you need help with this question, contact Maureen at [email protected]) Will you be requesting a full or partial cost-share waiver based on DAC/EDA status?

22. Operations and Maintenance: Please describe how operations and maintenance of the project will be supported.
2 Proposition 1 requires a minimum cost share of 50% of the total project cost. An applicant may request the local cost share requirement be waived or reduced for projects that directly benefit one or more DACs and/or Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs). See DWR Proposal Solicitation Package for additional details.

Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 987, Packet Page 1087 I-18

23. Storm Water Resource Plan Requirements: Is the project a storm water or dry weather runoff capture project? If so, is it included in a Storm Water Resource Plan?

24. Groundwater: Will the project affect groundwater levels? If so, how? If your project is located in the Seaside Groundwater Basin, has it been considered by the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Technical Advisory Committee and does it conform to the adjudication requirements?

25. AB 1249 Requirements: Does the project address nitrate, arsenic, or hexavalent chromium contamination in the region? If so, how?

26. Stakeholder Coordination: Please briefly describe the nature of stakeholder coordination for planning, developing, and implementing the project.

SECTION IV. COMPLIANCE
Complete this section only if you would like your project to be considered for Round 1 Implementation Grant funds.

To be eligible for IRWM Implementation Grant funds, project proponents must comply with the following.

27. Adoption of IRWM Plan
Proposition 1 IRWM Program Guidelines require that each project proponent named in an IRWM Grant application adopt the IRWM Plan. Please check if your agency/organization:

Has already adopted the IRWM Plan
Hereby commits to adopting the IRWM Plan, if the project is selected for submission in an IRWM Grant application

28. Urban Water Management Compliance
If your agency meets the definition of an urban water supplier (“supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that provides water for municipal purposes, either directly or indirectly, to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre‐feet of water annually”), you must demonstrate compliance with certain requirements.

These include:
• DWR-approved 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
• Verification from DWR that your agency submitted a validated water loss audit report (SB 555). • Compliance with the water metering requirements (CWC section 525) Is your agency an urban water supplier, and if so, can it meet these requirements? Yes, my agency is an urban water supplier and I can demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

No, my agency is an urban water supplier but I cannot demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

N/A: My agency is not an urban water supplier.

Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 988, Packet Page 1088 I-19

29. Surface Water Diverter Compliance
If your agency/organization is a surface water diverter, you must state whether your agency/organization has submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board your annual surface water diversion reports. Is your agency/organization a surface water diverter, and if so, can it meet this requirement? Yes, my agency is a surface water diverter and I can verify that we meet this requirement.

No, my agency is a surface water diverter but we have not met this requirement.

N/A: My agency is not a surface water diverter.

SECTION V. ROUND 1 PROJECT INFORMATION FORM
Please complete and submit the Project Information Form to Maureen Hamilton at [email protected], by February 8, 2019.

Complete the Project Information Form only if you would like your project to be considered for Round 1.

The Project Information Form was developed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). It contains the actual questions that each project proponent must address for the Region’s Round 1 application for Implementation Grant funds. This Project Information Form is still in draft form; some questions may change between now and the final application process. If your project is selected for Round 1, you will have another opportunity to revise your responses on this form, if necessary, before the Regional Water Management Group submits its Round 1 Implementation Grant application to the State.

Note that if your project is selected for the Round 1 application, you will need to be physically present for a Preapplication Workshop (time and location TBD) during which time DWR staff will review your project information and ask questions.

The information below in blue font is provided, for your information, to help you respond to certain questions on the Project Information Form.

A. PROJECT INFORMATION
Question 5. DAC question: No need to provide a map at this time.

Question 8. Funding Category: Your project is a “DAC Implementation Project” only if your project directly and entirely benefits a disadvantaged community.

Question 9. Project Type: Click on “Other” to see the categories.

B. SELECTED ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Question 2. How the Project Addresses the Critical Need(s) of the Region: Based on the objectives you selected in Section I Question 11 above, please explain how your project addresses the critical needs of the region.

Question 4. Climate Change: You need to explain how your project addresses climate change vulnerabilities specifically for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay region, if applicable. Vulnerabilities for the region are described in Chapter 15 of the 2014 IRWM Plan. This chapter can be downloaded at:
http://www.mpirwm.org/IRWM%20Library/IRWMPlan%20Final_whole.pdf) Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 989, Packet Page 1089 I-20
Question 5. Regional Water Self-Reliance: This question is actually intended for regions that depend on water from the Delta watershed. However, if your project includes one of the following, it contributes to regional water self-reliance: water use efficiency, water recycling, advanced water technologies, local and regional water supply project, or improved regional coordination of local and regional water supply efforts.

Question 6. Statewide Priorities. Statewide priorities include the following (see pp. 9-10 of the Prop 1 2016 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines Volume 1 for a full description of these priorities):

Make conservation a California way of life
• Building on current water conservation efforts and promoting the innovation of new systems for increased water conservation.
• Expand agricultural and urban water conservation and efficiency to exceed SB-X7-7 targets • Provide funding for conservation and efficiency
• Increase water sector energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction capacity • Promote local urban conservation ordinances and programs Increase regional self-reliance and integrated water management across all levels of government • Ensure water security at the local level, where individual government efforts integrate into one combined regional commitment where the sum becomes greater than any single piece. • Support and expand funding for Integrated Water Management planning and projects • Improve land use and water alignment
• Provide assistance to disadvantaged communities
• Encourage State focus on projects with multiple benefits • Increase the use of recycled water
Protect and restore important ecosystems
• Continue protecting and restoring the resiliency of our ecosystems to support fish and wildlife populations, improve water quality, and restore natural system functions. • Restore key mountain meadow habitat
• Manage headwaters for multiple benefits
• Protect key habitat of the Salton Sea through local partnership • Restore coastal watersheds
• Continue restoration efforts in the Lake Tahoe Basin
• Continue restoration efforts in the Klamath Basin
• Water for wetlands and waterfowl
• Eliminate barriers to fish migration
• Assess fish passage at large dams
• Enhance water flows in stream systems statewide
Manage and prepare for dry periods
• Effectively manage water resources through all hydrologic conditions to reduce impacts of shortages and lessen costs of state response actions. Secure more reliable water supplies and consequently improve drought preparedness and make California’s water system more resilient. • Revise operations to respond to extreme conditions
• Encourage healthy soils
Expand water storage capacity and improve groundwater management • Increase water storage for widespread public and environmental benefits, especially in increasingly dry years and better manage our groundwater to reduce overdraft.
• Provide essential data to enable Sustainable Groundwater Management • Support funding partnerships for storage projects
• Improve Sustainable Groundwater Management
• Support distributed groundwater storage
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 990, Packet Page 1090 I-21
• Increase statewide groundwater recharge
• Accelerate clean-up of contaminated groundwater and prevent future contamination Provide safe water for all communities
• Provide all Californians the right to safe, clean, affordable and accessible water • adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. • Consolidate water quality programs
• Provide funding assistance for vulnerable communities • Manage the supply status of community water systems
• Additionally, as required by Water Code §10545, in areas that have nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium contamination, consideration will be given to grant proposals that included projects that help address the impacts caused by nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium contamination, including projects that provide safe drinking water to small disadvantaged communities.

Increase flood protection
• Collaboratively plan for integrated flood and water management systems, and implement flood projects that protect public safety, increase water supply reliability, conserve farmlands, and restore ecosystems. • Improve access to emergency funds
• Better coordinate flood response operations
• Prioritize funding to reduce flood risk and improve flood response • Encourage flood projects that plan for climate change and achieve multiple benefits Increase operational and regulatory efficiency
This action is directed towards State and federal agencies; however, consideration will be afforded to eligible local or regional projects that also support increased operational of the State Water Project or Central Valley Project C. WORK PLAN, BUDGET, AND SCHEDULE
Please summarize the work plan and budget information that you provided (in detail) in Section III above.

D. OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION
Question 5. Does the project address a contaminant listed in AB 1249? These contaminants are, specifically:
nitrate, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, and perchlorate.

A “disadvantaged community” (or DAC) is defined as a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income, or according to the latest census data, less than $51,026. A “small disadvantaged community” is defined as a DAC that has a yearlong population of no more than 10,000 people.

Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 991, Packet Page 1091 I-22
HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION:

This Project Application Form is due January 14, 2019.

The Project Information Form is due February 8, 2019.

Please email your completed applications to Maureen Hamilton, at [email protected].

If you do not have email access, please hand-deliver one copy of your application to:

Maureen Hamilton
MPWMD
5 Harris Court, Suite
Monterey, CA 93940
Or by mail:

Maureen Hamilton
MPWMD
P.O. Box 85
Monterey, CA 93942-0085
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 992, Packet Page 1092 I-23
Proposition 1 Integrated Regional Water
Management (IRWM) Round 1 Implementation
Grant Project Solicitation Schedule 2018/2019
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 993, Packet Page 1093 I-24
WM Guidelines Page 9
Proposition 1 Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Round 1 Implementation Grant Project Solicitation Schedule 2018/2019R Department of Water Resources (DWR) Timeline for Round 1 Implementation Grants o Oct 5, 2018: DWR released Draft Project Solicitation Package (PSP) and Guidelines; comments due December 14, 2018
o November – early December: Central Coast Funding Area (CCFA) preparing joint comments on Draft PSP
o Early 2019: DWR releases Final PSP released
o DWR will schedule Pre-Application Workshops with each Funding Area following release of PSP. The Central Coast IRWM regions are requesting a workshop in June 2019.
o RWMG must provide DWR with information on proposed projects at least two weeks prior to the workshop: A Proposal Summary, plus a “Project Information Form” for each project.
o DWR will get back to regions with comments within 4 weeks after the workshop. o Application to DWR will be due 12 weeks after the workshop date.

Prop 1 IRWM Grant Funds Available to Central Coast Funding Area Prop 1 Allocation to CCFA: $43,000,000
Minus State costs (10%): - $4,300,000
Remaining for CCFA: $38,700,000
Of that amount:

DAC Funds (20% total allocation): $8,600,000
General Implementation Grant Funding: $30,100,000
Prop 1 IRWM Grant Funds Available to the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay Region
Total Prop 1 funds available:

DAC Funds: $931,966
General Implementation: $3,261,882
TOTAL: $4,193,848
Prop 1 funds spent to date:

DAC Involvement (50% of total DAC): $465,983
For Round 1, DWR is proposing that 35% of DAC Implementation funds and 50% of General Implementation funds be provided, leaving the rest for Round 2 in 2020.

Round 1: 50% of General Implementation allocation, 35% of remaining DAC allocation DAC Implementation: $163,094
General Implementation: $1,630,941
TOTAL: $1,794,035
Round 2 (2020): 50% of Implementation allocation, 65% of remaining DAC allocation DAC Implementation: $302,889
General Implementation: $1,630,941
TOTAL: $1,933,830
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 994, Packet Page 1094 I-25
Proposed Project Solicitation Schedule for IRWMP:
• October 5, 2018: Draft Project Solicitation Package (PSP) was released by DWR. • Tuesday November 27, 2018: Solicitation begins. Project proponents have approximately weeks to complete the Project Application Form (Tuesday Nov 27 – Monday Jan 14). The process will also be reviewed at the December 6 RWMG meeting.

Those who are interested in having their projects put forward in Round 1 will also need to submit DWR’s Project Information Form. The Project Information Form will be due Monday February 8, 2019.
• January 14, 2019: Project Application Forms due. Subcommittee ranks projects. • January 21, 2019: Prioritized project list prepared by TAC (prior to January 24 RWMG meeting).
• January 24 RWMG Meeting: Discuss project ranking with RWMG, and consider ranked Project List for Round 1. RWMG takes a first look at projects on the table for Round 1. • February 8, 2019: Project Information Forms due.
• February, March and April RWMG Meetings: Project proponents present their projects to the RWMG. RWMG selects projects to put forward.
• April or May RWMG Meeting: Must decide which projects to put forward, in time for June Funding Area Pre-Application Workshop.
• June 2019 (tbd): Pre-Application Workshop with DWR. Proposal Summary and Project Information Forms are due to DWR two weeks prior to the workshop.

Local Cost Share
Proposition 1 requires a minimum cost share of 50% of the total project cost. Applicants must demonstrate that a minimum of 50 percent of the total proposal costs will be paid for with nonState funds (Water Code §79742(C)). Costs incurred after January 1, 2015 (the effective date of Proposition 1) can be used as local cost share; in-kind services may also be used for local cost share.

An applicant may request the local cost share requirement be waived or reduced for projects that directly benefit one or more DACs and/or Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs). The 2018 Guidelines, Appendices E and F provide details regarding what documentation must be submitted to support claimed benefits to DACs and/or EDAs. Project benefits may be claimed based on either by population or geographic area. If documentation submitted is reasonable, cost share waivers will be will be determined as follows:

DAC/EDA Benefit Cost Share Waiver
• 76% - 100%: 100 percent cost share waiver
• 51% - 75%: 75 percent cost share reduction waiver
• 25% - 50%: 50 percent cost share reduction waiver
• Less than 25%: No cost share reduction waiver
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 995, Packet Page 1095 I-26
Eligible Project Types
Subject to regional priorities, projects may include, but are not limited to, the following elements (Water Code §79743 (a - j)):
• Water reuse and recycling for non-potable reuse and direct and indirect potable reuse • Water-use efficiency and water conservation
• Local and regional surface and underground water storage, including groundwater aquifer cleanup or recharge projects
• Regional water conveyance facilities that improve integration of separate water systems • Watershed protection, restoration, and management projects, including projects that reduce the risk of wildfire or improve water supply reliability • Stormwater resource management, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Projects to reduce, manage, treat, or capture rainwater or stormwater • Projects that provide multiple benefits such as water quality, water supply, flood control, or open space
• Decision support tools that evaluate the benefits and costs of multi-benefit stormwater projects
• Projects to implement a stormwater resource plan developed in accordance with Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 10560) of Division 6 including Water Code § 10562 (b)(7)
• Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater storage facilities • Water desalination projects
• Decision support tools to model regional water management strategies to account for climate change and other changes in regional demand and supply projections • Improvement of water quality, including drinking water treatment and distribution, groundwater and aquifer remediation, matching water quality to water use, wastewater treatment, water pollution prevention, and management of urban and agricultural runoff • Regional projects or programs as defined by the IRWM Planning Act (Water Code §10537).

Eligible proposals must do the following. The following requirements may be applied at the project level depending on the individual PSP:
• Advance the purpose of Proposition 1 Chapter 7, Regional Water Security, Climate, and Drought Preparedness (Water Code §79707(c) and §79740) which are, as follows:
• Assist water infrastructure systems adapt to climate change • Provide incentives for water agencies throughout each watershed to collaborate in managing the region’s water resources and setting regional priorities for water infrastructure
Eligible also projects must:
• Promote State planning priorities and sustainable community strategies, consistent with Government Code §65041.1 and §65080 (Water Code §79707 (i) • Be included in a Stormwater Resource Plan that has been incorporated into and IRWM plan, unless exempt per Water Code §10563(c)(2)(B). (Applies only to stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects.)
• Be supported by the local Groundwater Sustainability Agency. (Applies only to projects that affect Groundwater levels.)
In the Monterey Peninsula IRWM region, any groundwater projects will be routed to the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster TAC for review.

Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 996, Packet Page 1096 I-27
Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 997, Packet Page 1097 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 2-F

SAN JOSE CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 998, Packet Page 1098 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 999, Packet Page 1099 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1000, Packet Page 1100 San Jose Creek Watershed Assessment
Prepared for:

Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
Prepared by:

Denis RuƩenberg and Barry Hecht , Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Danny Hagans and Tara Zuroweste, Pacific Watershed Associates March 2014
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1001, Packet Page 1101 A report prepared for:

Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
60 Garden Court #325
Monterey, CA 93940
(83 r) 372-31e6
Attn: Tim Jensen
[email protected]
San Jose Creek Watershed Assessment
@ 2014 Balance Project Assignment : 2l2ll4
by
-1 l' {t '-t/ .l ', *n *"
^,,,^,..r,L !. ,r.'t" ,-'
,,
Denis Ruttenberg, PE
Engineer / Hydrologist
Balance
Hydrologicqlnc3
800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101
Berkeley, California 947 10-2800
(s 10) 104-1000
d,rw!tren!?pt"sQh,.frlqnp.,e,hy"fu ,a,,.p.pm
March 31, 20L4
lu {{
6w,t"y
Danny Hagans, CPESC
Principal
' *t"
4 -4#' I
.*d*'
0ff,'f{
T ara Zuroweste, PG, CPESC
Associate Geologist
H
?hCI FIC
VVATIRSHEil
ASSOCIATES ru
Pacific Watershed Associates Inc.

PO Box 4433, Arcata, CA 95518-4433
(707) 83e-s 130
d,anny.h9"p.K,tfr c.wqtsmh"ed,p,em
B ech
:b.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1002, Packet Page 1102 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 WEATHER AND WATERSHED CONDITIONS DURING THE STUDY ................................................................. 2

1.4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 3

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2.1 Surface lithology .................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Geologic structure .................................................................................................................................. 8

2.2.3 Implications of uplift .............................................................................................................................. 8

2.3 SOILS ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 SLOPE GRADIENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 11

2.5 INFRASTRUCTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 12

2.5.1 Road Networks ..................................................................................................................................... 12

2.5.1.1 Animas Creek Road Network ..................................................................................................................... 13

2.5.1.2 Seneca Creek Road Network ...................................................................................................................... 14

2.5.1.3 Van Winkley Canyon Road Network ........................................................................................................ 14

2.5.1.4 Williams Canyon Subwatershed Road Network ..................................................................................... 14

2.5.1.1 Remaining San Jose Creek Road Network ................................................................................................ 15

2.5.2 Williams Canyon Infrastructure ......................................................................................................... 15

2.5.2.1 Santa Lucia Conservancy and Private Land Holdings ............................................................................ 15

2.5.2.2 California State Park Lands ........................................................................................................................ 16

2.6 HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY REVIEW ................................................................................................... 16

2.7 OBLIQUE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 17

3. HYDROLOGY AND GAGING ................................................................................................................... 18

3.1 PAST AND CURRENT GAGING WITHIN WATERSHED ..................................................................................... 18

3.1.1 MPWMD gaging ................................................................................................................................ 18

3.1.2 CSU Monterey Bay gaging ................................................................................................................. 20

3.1.3 Other studies and gaging .................................................................................................................... 22

3.2 TEMPORARY EXTENDED STREAM GAGING AND RAIN GAGE NETWORK ....................................................... 22

3.2.1 San Jose Creek at V-notch weir downstream of Van Winkley Canyon ............................................... 23

3.2.2 Seneca Creek just upstream of confluence with San Jose Creek ........................................................... 24

3.2.3 Water level sensor and flow at mouth of San Jose Creek ..................................................................... 24

3.2.4 Rain gages ............................................................................................................................................ 24

3.3 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 24

3.3.1 Precipitation ........................................................................................................................................ 24

3.3.2 Storm flows .......................................................................................................................................... 27

3.3.3 Base flow .............................................................................................................................................. 27

4. SEDIMENT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................... 28

4.1 UPLAND SOURCES ......................................................................................................................................... 28

4.1.1 Road/trail networks ‐ Overview .......................................................................................................... 28

4.1.2 Road/trail networks – Previous watershed assessments ...................................................................... 30

4.1.3 Road/trail networks – Future sediment delivery estimates .................................................................. 33

4.1.4 Hillslope Landslides and Gullies ......................................................................................................... 36

4.2 INSTREAM SOURCES ...................................................................................................................................... 41

4.2.1 Background Stream Inventories .......................................................................................................... 41 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1003, Packet Page 1103 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx iii

4.2.2 PWA Instream Sediment Source Site Assessment Objectives and Methodology ............................... 42

4.2.3 PWA Instream Sediment Source Site Assessment Results ................................................................. 43

4.2.4 Instream Observations and Sediment Source Summary ..................................................................... 49

4.3 SEDIMENT GAGING ....................................................................................................................................... 51

4.3.1 PWA Sediment Retention Basins (Traps) ........................................................................................... 51

4.3.2 Bed Sediment samples .......................................................................................................................... 52

4.4 ESTIMATED SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND YIELD............................................................................................ 53

4.4.1 Sediment transport in channel ............................................................................................................ 53

5. FISH BARRIER ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 57

5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 57

5.2 CDFW BARRIER AND OTHER POTENTIAL BARRIER ANALYSES .................................................................. 57

5.2.1 San Jose Creek Potential Barriers ........................................................................................................ 58

5.2.1.1 Concrete dam at station # 1.51 upstream of Animas Creek confluence ................................................ 58

5.2.1.2 CDFW barrier #1: Bedrock falls at station # 2.85 ..................................................................................... 60

5.2.1.3 PWA Site #47 log jam at station # 5.05 ...................................................................................................... 64

5.2.1.4 CDFW barrier #2 near CDFW station # 7.5 .............................................................................................. 74

5.2.1.5 CDFW barrier #3 near CDFW station 8.0 .................................................................................................. 78

5.2.2 Seneca Creek Potential Barriers ........................................................................................................... 82

5.2.2.1 Barrier at 1.74 mile ....................................................................................................................................... 82

5.2.2.2 CDFW barrier at station 1.9 mile ................................................................................................................ 83

6. SAN JOSE CREEK LONGSHORE LAGOON .......................................................................................... 85

6.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 85

6.2 WORK CONDUCTED ..................................................................................................................................... 85

6.2.1 Unique geomorphology ........................................................................................................................ 85

6.2.2 Similar unique role in salmonid ecology .............................................................................................. 86

6.2.3 No role in amphibian or reptile ecology ............................................................................................... 86

6.2.4 Pilarcitos Creek Lagoon as site analog ................................................................................................. 86

6.3 WATER LEVEL GAGING AND GROUND SURVEY .......................................................................................... 87

6.4 PHOTO DOCUMENTATION OF LAGOON WITH TIME LAPSE CAMERAS .......................................................... 87

6.5 OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 90

6.5.1 Alignment and geometry of San Jose Creek lagoon ............................................................................. 90

6.5.2 Opening and closing of lagoon ............................................................................................................ 91

7. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 93

7.1 SAN JOSE CREEK STREAM GAGING .............................................................................................................. 93

7.1.1 Storm and Stream Gage Monitoring ................................................................................................... 93

7.2 SEDIMENT ...................................................................................................................................................... 93

7.2.1 Quantitative Road/Trail Assessment .................................................................................................. 94

7.2.2 Quantitative Upslope Erosion Assessment ......................................................................................... 94

7.2.3 Maintain Installed Sediment Basins ................................................................................................... 95

7.2.4 Treatment of Identified Instream Sites ................................................................................................ 95

7.2.5 Further Specific Instream and Upslope Assessments .......................................................................... 97

7.3 FISH BARRIERS .............................................................................................................................................. 99

7.3.1 Further Evaluation and Treatment of FB #1 ....................................................................................... 99

7.3.2 Treatment of FB #2 and FB #3 ............................................................................................................ 99

7.3.3 Monitoring of Sudden Oak Disease and Treatment of Potential Fish Barriers ................................... 99

7.4 LONG-SHORE LAGOON .............................................................................................................................. 100

7.4.1 Further Lagoon Studies ..................................................................................................................... 100

7.4.2 Recapture Lagoon Photo Points and Surveys .................................................................................... 100

7.5 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 100

8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 102 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1004, Packet Page 1104 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Subwatersheds of San Jose Creek
Table 2.2 Stream Strahler Orders of San Jose Creek Watershed Table 2.3 Ownership within San Jose Creek Subwatersheds Table 2.4 Lithology of San Jose Creek Watershed
Table 2.5 Soil types within San Jose Creek Watershed according to NRCS Websoil Survey
Table 2.6 Slope gradient area by Subwatershed
Table 2.7 Road/trail Network of San Jose Creek by Subwatershed Table 3.1 Annual Peak flows for MPWMD gaging site near mouth of San Jose Creek.

Table 3.2 Flood frequency flows based on peak flows from MPWMD gage near mouth of San Jose Creek.

Table 4.1 Evaluated road/trail Network of San Jose Creek by Subwatershed Table 4.2 Estimated volume of future sediment delivery for sites and road surfaces assessed within Williams Canyon Subwatershed
Table 4.3 Estimated future erosion anticipated from road related (upslope) sources by subwatershed based on extrapolation of field estimates
Table 4.4 Stream length and average drainage density of San Jose Creek by Strahler order
Table 4.5 Inventoried instream site types
Table 4.6 Estimated past and future sediment delivery from inventoried instream sites Table 4.7 Summary results of inventoried instream obstructions Table 4.8 Field estimated sediment delivery from all inventoried instream sites Table 4.9 Estimated future sediment delivery volumes anticipated from instream sources by Strahler Order based on extrapolation of field estimates Table 4.10 Particle size analysis for bedload samples and bed samples Table 5.1 Surveyed fish barriers (FB), San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, CA Table 6.1 Observed opening and closing of San Jose Creek lagoon at Monastery Beach during salmonid migration season according to review of time-lapse photography
Table 7.1 Inventoried instream sites recommended for treatment Table 7.2 Recommended treatments for inventoried instream sites Table 7.3 Estimated heavy equipment and labor requirements based on treatment immediacy and effectiveness for instream inventoried sites recommended for treatment
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1005, Packet Page 1105 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Rainfall history at San Clemente Dam, 6 miles east of the San Jose Creek .................... 3 Figure 2.1. Soils within San Jose Creek Watershed by Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) according to USDA NRCS, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California. ............................ 10 Figure 2.2. View of a typical upper slope native, unsurfaced road found within SJC Watershed with insloped road shapes and concentrated runoff.. ..................................................... 12 Figure 2.3. View of a typical upper slope native, unsurfaced road found within SJC Watershed with insloped road shapes, concentrated runoff and locally retreating cutbanks. ..... 13 Figure 2.4. View of a native, unsurfaced streamside road found within Seneca Creek Subwatershed.. ...................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2.5. View of native, unsurfaced roads found within Williams Canyon Subwatershed.. ... 15 Figure 2.6. Upper Williams Canyon headwater hill slopes underlain by granitic bedrock displaying a high frequency of shallow debris slides. .................................................... 17 Figure 3.1. Mean daily flow at MPWMD gage, Water Years 1999 to 2013. .................................... 18 Figure 3.2. Location of CSUMB gaging for water year 2011, adapted from Paddock (2012). ...... 20 Figure 3.3. Discharge record from CSUMB for Water Year 2011 on upper San Jose Creek, based on Emily Paddock’s work (2012). . ................................................................................... 21 Figure 3.4. Discharge record from CSUMB for Water Year 2011 on Williams Canyon Creek, courtesy of Paddock (2012). . ............................................................................................. 21 Figure 3.5. Past flow measurements at v-notch weir on San Jose Creek by Balance Hydrologics (Hecht and Napolitano, 1995). ............................................................................................ 22 Figure 3.6. Gaged flow at V-notch weir on San Jose Creek, and precipitation at two nearby rain gages installed for this study during WY2013 and the first four months of WY2014. 25 Figure 3.7. Gaged flow and precipitation on Seneca Creek for Water Year 2013 .......................... 26 Figure 3.8. Gaged flow and precipitation on San Jose Creek at Highway 1 for Water Year 201326 Figure 4.1. View of undersized culverted stream crossing along Seneca Creek. ............................ 32 Figure 4.2. View of hydrologically connected road reach with no permanent drainage structures installed to disperse road runoff.. ...................................................................................... 32 Figure 4.3. Active hill slope gullies predominately concentrated in Miocene sandstone bedrock on planar, south facing slopes. ........................................................................................... 37 Figure 4.4. Large active hillslope gullies forming on gentle, planar slopes with over‐steepened sideslopes, lack vegetation, prone to periodic sideslope collapse.. ............................... 38 Figure 4.5. View of the upslope initiation point of Gully #2 (Map 5). Note the lack of vegetation, near vertical sideslopes and scarp forming at red arrow. .............................................. 39 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1006, Packet Page 1106 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx vi Figure 4.6. Upslope of the head of active hillslope gullies one can observe linear, mole‐like tracks of collapsing ground suggesting sub‐surface groundwater piping is occurring. ................................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 4.7. View looking downslope at actively enlarging and oversteepened sideslopes of gully #1 just upslope of abandoned road.. . ................................................................................ 40 Figure 4.8. Collapse structures such as shown in the photo are common on gentler hill slopes underlain by the Miocene sandstone bedrock.. ................................................................ 41 Figure 4.9. View of inventoried bank erosion site along Seneca Creek, Site #31 (Map 5). ............ 44 Figure 4.10. View of inventoried bank erosion site along SJC, Site #43 (Map 5). ............................ 44 Figure 4.11. Retained sediment behind log jam at Site #24 along Seneca Creek (Map 5). This jam was not a barrier to fish. ...................................................................................................... 44 Figure 4.12 Log jam Site #41 on Seneca Creek (Map 5). View from the right bank (PWA photo 2013). . .................................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 4.13. Additional view of inventoried log jam site along Seneca Creek, Site #41. ............... 46 Figure 4.14. View of inventoried log jam site along San Jose Creek, Site #49 (Map 5). .................. 46 Figure 4.15. View of retained sediment behind inventoried log jam site along San Jose Creek, Site #50 (Map 5). .................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 4.16. View of San Jose Creek. The reach is low gradient with a well‐established floodplain along the right bank and bimodal distribution of the channel bottom. .... 49 Figure 4.17. View of the installation of sediment retention basin (SB #1) placed within the failing road crossing to capture transported material from the erosion of upslope Gully #1 (Map 5). .................................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 4.18. Particle size gradation of bedload samples (blue solid lines), bed samples (red dashed lines), and beach sand (gray solid line) for SJC .................................................. 52 Figure 4.19. Estimated bedload rating curve for San Jose Creek ...................................................... 55 Figure 4.20. Estimated suspended-sediment rating curve for San Jose Creek ................................ 56 Figure 5.1. View from road across SJC to right bank at low concrete dam (Site #1, Map 5) and channel breach around dam on left bank, in foreground. .............................................. 59 Figure 5.2. View downstream at concrete dam in center of photo with thalweg in channel to left of large natural boulder in SJC. .......................................................................................... 60 Figure 5.3. Fish barrier #1, Longitudinal Profile and Cross Section at bedrock falls natural barrier on San Jose Creek. ................................................................................................... 61 Figure 5.4. View upstream at CDFW barrier #1 (Site #7, Map 5) taken from downstream riffle crest. ........................................................................................................................................ 62 Figure 5.5. Close up of 6’ tall bedrock chute and falls at CDFW barrier #1 behind person (Site #7, Map 5). ................................................................................................................................... 62 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1007, Packet Page 1107 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx vii Figure 5.6. Estimate hydraulics from course HEC‐RAS model at bedrock falls barrier ................ 63 Figure 5.7. Site #47: View upstream from cross section #1 (Figure 5.18). ....................................... 65 Figure 5.8. Site#47: View downstream from cross section #1 (Figure 5.18) at upstream end of channel stored sediments (Figure 5.17). . ......................................................................... 66 Figure 5.9. Site#47: View upstream from cross section #2 (Figure 5.18) at aggraded channel reach. ...................................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 5.10. Site#47: View downstream from cross section #2 (Figure 5.18) at upper logjam. ..... 67 Figure 5.11. Site#47: View upstream from cross section #3 (Figure 5.18). ....................................... 67 Figure 5.12. Site#47: View downstream from cross section #3 (Figure 5.18) at upper and lower logjams. .................................................................................................................................. 68 Figure 5.13. Site#47: Photo mosaic taken from right end stake of cross section #4 (Figure 5.18) showing the upper and lower logjams, associated channel stored sediment, and the right bank high flow channel in foreground. ................................................................... 69 Figure 5.14. Site#47: Photo mosaic taken from thalweg looking upstream at lower logjam (in center of photo) and developing high flow channel and sediment filled plunge pool on left below exposed redwood roots. ............................................................................ 70 Figure 5.15. Site#47: View downstream from near centerline of San Jose Creek illustrating typical SJC riffle characteristics, as well as a small <5 yd3 left bank erosion site. ....... 71 Figure 5.16. Extensive Sudden Oak Death mortality and fallen trees potentially forming a large log jam 450 ft upstream from PWA Site #47. .................................................................... 71 Figure 5.17. Longitudinal Profile of Logjam, Site #47 along San Jose Creek. .................................. 72 Figure 5.18. Cross Sections #1 through #5 of Logjam, Site #47 along San Jose Creek. .................... 73 Figure 5.19. View upstream from SJC at CDFW log jam barrier #2 in distance and at headcut on right bank terrace where diverted SJC streamflow re‐enters the main stem of SJC. .. 74 Figure 5.20. View downstream taken from top of CDFW barrier #2 with 8’ vertical step in channel. .................................................................................................................................. 75 Figure 5.21. View downstream from near station #180 in the long profile at aggraded sandy streambed and stored sediment upstream of barrier #2.. ............................................... 75 Figure 5.22. Longitudinal profile of Fish Barrier #2, large redwood logjam with side channel on San Jose Creek. ...................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 5.23. View downstream from near station #350 in long profile at diverted SJC stream across old growth terrace.. .................................................................................................. 77 Figure 5.24. View upstream at CDFW barrier #3 taken from top right bank.. ................................ 78 Figure 5.25. View downstream at crest of log jam (at survey rod) with channel stored sediment covered by litter.. .................................................................................................................. 79 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1008, Packet Page 1108 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx viii Figure 5.26. View downstream taken from station #80 in long profile at recently re‐incised channel through previously stored sediment. .................................................................. 79 Figure 5.27. Longitudinal Profile at Fish Barrier #3, large multi logjam on San Jose Creek. ......... 81 Figure 5.28. View upstream at concrete dam face and apron on Seneca Creek (Site #37, Map 5) located at stream mile 1.47 near the old homestead. ....................................................... 83 Figure 5.29. View looking upstream at site #41 (Map 5) at station #1.9.. ......................................... 84 Figure 6.1. San Jose Creek Lagoon survey, time lapse camera locations, and water level recorder location ................................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 6.2. San Jose Creek Lagoon surveyed cross sections and profile from May 2, 2013, compared to 2009 – 2011 CA Coastal Conservancy Coastal Lidar Project. .................. 89 Figure 6.3. Typical photos from time lapse photography showing relation of lagoon inundation to tidal cycle........................................................................................................................... 90

LIST OF OVERSIZE MAPS
Map 1. Location of the San Jose Creek Watershed showing roads by landowner Map 2. Strahler Stream Order of the San Jose Creek Watershed Map 3. Lithology of the San Jose Creek Watershed
Map 4. Hillslope gradients within the San Jose Creek Watershed Map 5. Site map of study locations within the San Jose Creek Watershed

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Aerial photographs: Historic Aerials, California Coastal Records Project, and Oblique Fixed-wing flight on February 16, 2013
Appendix B. Stream gaging: Observers logs, notes, photos, and sediment analysis results Appendix C. Field observations for instream sites
Appendix D. CDFW Memorandum detailing observations of Warden Lester Golden in the summer of 1962 on San Jose Creek
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1009, Packet Page 1109 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
At the request of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD), as funded by a 2012 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan grant (IRWMP), the following report provides a broad watershed assessment to investigate runoff and sediment issues within the San Jose Creek Watershed. The main goal of this report is to evaluate the San Jose Creek watershed for sediment and fish passage as it relates to salmonid habitat and make recommendations for improvements.

This report identifies current sediment sources within the watershed based on reconnaissance field and aerial surveys; summarizes past stream and sediment gaging; reports stream gaging for the previous water year; presents a partial fish barrier analysis; and evaluates fish passage at the mouth of San Jose Creek.

This study focuses on the portion of the watershed downstream of Van Winkley Canyon. This lower portion of the watershed is largely in agency ownership. Most of the private holdings in the upper part of the basin have already seen several years of detailed studies in related matters. The channels of the upper watershed are also more distal from key salmonid habitat.

To the extent possible, previous studies from the upper watersheds are integrated into this analysis. By leveraging analysis to the lower watershed, a better understanding of areas previously unstudied for sediment loading and salmonid habitat is provided.

MPRPD selected Balance Hydrologics (‘Balance’) to conduct this assessment on October 17, 2013. The proposed scope included Pacific Watershed Associates (‘PWA’) as a major and fundamental subcontractor, charged with most of the work on the slopes and road network, and working side by side with Balance on assessment of passage and erodibility in the channels.

Rob Thompson of Thompson Wildland Management also served as a subcontractor, assisting in storm monitoring. The contract was approved by the MPRPD on December 3, 2013.

Installation of some gages occurred prior to authorization, due to seasonal needs.

1.2 Study objectives
To follow upon findings and recommendations in Nelson (2006a; 2006b) and to fulfill the scope of work for the watershed study, the Project team of Balance and PWA set a field program to address objectives as follows:
 Install temporary stream gage network to evaluate base flows and storm flows in water year 2013.
 Evaluate sediment sources in upland areas through review of aerial photography, analysis of previous studies, and reconnaissance field surveys.  Locate sediment sources from instream bank erosion and morphology through instream surveys and field reconnaissance.
 Measure rates of erosion and sediment delivery from uplands areas and stream banks.
 Estimate sediment loading from upland and instream sources.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1010, Packet Page 1110 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 2  Provide more detailed study of fish barriers identified by CDFW in 2006  Provide photography to document opening and closing of lagoon during fish migration period (March ‐ June)
 Conduct ground survey of lagoon cross sections to document geomorphology  Prepare recommendations for improvement of salmonid habitat from additional studies and/or projects for sediment management, fish barrier removal, and lagoon improvement.

1.3 Weather and Watershed Conditions During the Study
Watershed studies which include gaging, sediment transport, and hillslope sediment contributions typically extend through three or more winters. This study was more abbreviated in concept, in part because of its focus on steelhead habitat. Unfortunately, the one water year initially allowed for this study1 was WY20132, which proved to be one of the drier years on record. Additionally, it followed a dry WY2012. While WYs2010 and 2011 were somewhat wetter than average, it has been 15 years since the watershed experienced a major recharge season – which we have identified as about 165 percent of mean annual rainfall in our work in the nearby Las Garzas, San Clemente and Pine Canyon watersheds. Annual rainfall totals at San Clemente Dam, the area’s primary rain gage, are shown in Figure 1.1. For comparison, WY2012 and WY2013 totaled to 13.99 inches and 14.6 inches of rainfall at San Clemente Dam 3, respectively. Based on 92 years of records, average annual rainfall at San Clemente Dam is

21.27 inches, so the two consecutive below normal WY2012 and WY2013, were 66% and 69% of the average annual rainfall, respectively. WY2014 is also looking to be a dry year as well, with

7.5 inches of precipitation until mid‐march.

A similar weather pattern occurred in 1961, which represented a third dry year in a row. In relation this sequence of dry years, Appendix D presents stream bed observations by California Department of Fish and Game Warden Lester Gordon (CDFG, 1962). The observations include remarks about streams in the upper watershed lacking permanent flow and sand deposits throughout the system.

1 The initial deadline for completion of field work, September 30, 2013, was extended to allow collection of additional data through January 15, 2014. We continued the monitoring through the first week of February 2014. Field work was terminated on that time to allow completion of the project report by March 31, 2014.
2 A water year (abbreviated “WY”) is the basic period used for hydrologic and sedimentologic analysis. It commences on October 1 and extends through September 30 of the named year. WY2013 began on October 1, 2012 and concluded on September 30, 2013.
3 Precipitation provided by the MPWMD as a courtesy to the study. Data is provisional and provided for reference.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1011, Packet Page 1111 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 3 Figure 1.1. Rainfall history at San Clemente Dam, 6 miles east of the San Jose Creek Watershed conditions were reasonably undisturbed during the period of study. Fires of watershed extent have not been reported from this area since the early 1930s. The last major flooding occurred in 1995 and 1998, so no fresh flood‐generated disturbance was noted.

Grazing has been sharply curtailed over the past decade or more. No extended multi‐year drought has occurred since the early 1990s. A number of homes and driveways had been constructed within the boundaries of the Santa Lucia Conservancy (Rancho San Carlos) over the past 20 years. Most of these are located upstream of Van Winkley Canyon, outside of the study area.

The one significant environmental disturbance noted was the prevalence of sudden oak death.

Several patches of 3 to 5 acres each were observed to be losing all hardwoods. We make note in the report where such patches may have various local effects. Given the steep slopes, the roots of such trees have an important role in slope stability. Continued expansion of areas where interpenetrating roots will be lost and will likely lead to additional landsliding and gullying, particularly on the south side of San Jose Creek (SJC).

1.4 Acknowledgments
Balance and PWA staff appreciate the efforts made by many different individuals to make this study possible. In particular, Tim Jensen, MPRPD Planning and Conservation Manager, has always been a strong advocate for Palo Corona and the San Jose Creek watershed. He developed the concept for this study, then was able to support it with a combination of funding from the MPRPD board and a grant from the Monterey Peninsula Integrated Regional Water Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1012, Packet Page 1112 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 4 Management Program (IRWMP), managed by District Engineer Larry Hampson and his staff at the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). Funding for the IRWMP came from Proposition 84 funds awarded to MPWMD (as fiscal agent) by the State Water Resources Control Board.

We also wish to express our gratitude to a number of landowners who allowed us access and permitted installation of a wide variety of instrumentation. Some of our work and much of our instrumentation was installed at the Santa Lucia Conservancy (SLC), which manages the upper one‐third of the San Jose Creek watershed under the direction of Christina (“Christy”) Fischer.

Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) permitted use of work performed 5 years ago by PWA staff, and allowed access to review conditions at some sites. In addition, the land owners of private property on Monastery Beach were kind enough to allow access for our team to install and maintain time‐lapse cameras of the lagoon.

Rob Thompson, proprietor of Thompson Wildland Management and a former watershed manager at SLC, assisted with the field work, often under adverse conditions. Lynne Overtree, former resident caretaker at Palo Corona Ranch made several helpful suggestions, and provided historical background and anecdotal accounts which brought life to some parts of our work.

Jennifer Nelson, senior biologist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), walked and studied SJC in considerable detail in 2006, a wet year. Her photos and reports provided both context for change over time and context for the differences between wet and dry years (Nelson, 2006a; 2006b).

Finally, and most warmly, we wish to thank Greg James, Hydrography Programs Coordinator at MPWMD, who has shared with us his observations, opinions, and the data he has collected over the past 25 years. We suspect that Greg had to make significant changes to his annual schedule of data collection and management to provide us with final data on the schedule required for this short‐fuse report.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1013, Packet Page 1113 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 5

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Watershed Description
The San Jose Creek Watershed covers approximately 14.42 mi2 located in northwest Monterey County. The mouth of San Jose Creek (SJC) exits on the north end of Monastery Beach off Highway 1 approximately 2 miles south of Carmel (Map 1). There are 4 major tributaries of SJC:

Animas Creek, Seneca Creek, Van Winkley Canyon, and Williams Canyon. Animas Creek subwatershed is 1.60 mi2 and is the northern most tributary to SJC. Seneca Creek subwatershed is 2.30 mi2 and is the largest and most southwestern named tributary to SJC. Van Winkley Canyon subwatershed is 0.86 mi2 and located between Seneca and Williams Canyon. Finally, Williams Canyon subwatershed is 1.97 mi2 and is the most southeastern named tributary to SJC (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1. Subwatersheds of San Jose Creek, San Jose
Creek Watershed Assessment, Monterey County,
California.

Subwatershed Area (mi2) % area
Animas Creek 1.60 11%
Seneca Creek 2.30 16%
Van Winkley Canyon 0.86 6%
Williams Canyon 1.97 14%
Remaining San Jose Creek 7.69 53%
Total Watershed Area 14.42 100.00%
The main stem of SJC is aligned northwest to southeast and extends for about 8 miles, with the main slope aspects facing northeast and southwest (Map 1). The watershed is bordered by the Carmel River basin to the north and coastal watersheds in the Santa Lucia Range to the south.

Average annual rainfall for the watershed is 27.1 inches (USGS, 2014). The topography ranges from elevation 0 to 3173 feet and is typically steep terrain with an average slope of 39%, based on the 30 meter DEM of the watershed (USGS, 2014). About 45 percent of the watershed is vegetated in forest. Less than 0.1 percent is impervious area. The hydrologic flow regime is typically sheet flow in the upper elevations on steep grass land, which then collects into confined channels and forested canyons, ultimately reaching the ocean through a narrow, sand‐ bedded, long‐shore lagoon. The mouth of SJC opens intermittently and lagoon water levels are linked closely to tide levels.

San Jose Creek watershed includes 70.19 mi of 1st order, 2nd order, 3rd order, 4th order, and 5th order streams. Stream order was identified utilizing GIS generation (3m DEM) and the Strahler stream order system (Table 2.2, Map 2). The Strahler ordering system, developed in 1952, is a simple method of classifying stream segments based on the number of upstream tributaries. A stream with no tributaries (headwater stream) is considered a first order stream. A segment downstream of the confluence of two first order streams is a second order stream. Any nth order stream is always located downstream of the confluence of two (n‐1)th order streams (Strahler, 1952).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1014, Packet Page 1114 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 6 Table 2.2. Stream Strahler Orders of San Jose Creek
Watershed, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County,
California.

Strahler Order Length (mi2) % length
1 4 36.72 52%
2 14.47 21%
3 7.151 10%
4 4.98 7%
5 6.87 10%
Total Length in Watershed 70.19 100.00%
Ownership within the SJC Watershed includes larger holdings of: State of California (State), Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD), Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT), and Santa Lucia Conservancy (SLC). The remaining watershed is held privately or is designated as “unknown” (Table 2.3, Map 1). Access to the Animas Creek subwatershed and lower SJC areas is from Carmel on Highway 1 through California State Park property and through a MPRPD gate. Seneca Creek is accessed by the MPRPD Palo Corona entrance off Highway 1 or by Rancho San Carlos Road from the north. Van Winkley Canyon and Williams Canyon subwatersheds are accessed via Rancho San Carlos Road and SLC and BSLT properties.

Table 2.3. Ownership within San Jose Creek Subwatersheds, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Ownership
Subwatershed Area (mi2) %
Total
area
Animas Seneca Van
Winkley Williams San Jose
Big Sur Land Trust 0.15 0.02 0.10 1.43 0.46 15%
Santa Lucia
Conservancy 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.30 2.38 21%
Monterey Peninsula
Regional Park District 0.45 2.24 0.45 0.05 1.00 29%
State Of California 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.17 1.42 11%
Private Landholdings 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 1.99 21%
Unknown 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 3%
Total Area 1.60 2.30 0.86 1.97 7.69 100%

4 Based on the resolution of GIS –DEM, 1st order stream channels are likely underestimated.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1015, Packet Page 1115 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 7

2.2 Geology

2.2.1 Surface lithology
The distribution of mapped lithological units within the SJC watershed is illustrated in Table 2.4 and Map 3. The lithology for the study area was compiled from GIS provided by the MPRPD (Rosenberg, 2001), as used for the Palo Corona Roads Report (CGS, 2010). Within the Animas watershed the primary geologic unit is the Monterey formation from the middle to late Miocene (Tm). The stratigraphy is tilted and uplifted, with differentially eroded beds leaving a characteristic landscape image, as shown on the aerial photos (see Appendix A). The Monterey formation beds extend along the slopes north of SJC within the upper watershed. The Monterey formation, and underlying Vaqueros sandstone (Tvq) and an associated Unnamed marine sandstone (Tts), overlie Cretaceous porphyritic granodiorite (Map symbol Kgdm). All three geologic units develop friable sandy soils, with moderate to high erosion potential, particularly when disturbed by natural episodic events or anthropogenic activities.

Table 2.4. Lithology of San Jose Creek Watershed, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Lithology Area (mi2) % area
Qb – Beach sand (Historical) 0.00 0.0%
Qal– Alluvium (Holocene) 0.37 2.6%
Qc– Colluvium (Holocene) 0.09 0.6%
Qls – Landslide deposits (Holocene‐Pleistocene) 0.39 2.7% Qct – Coastal terrace deposits (Pleistocene) 0.13 0.9%
Tc – Carmelo Formation (Early Eocene) 0.00 0.0%
Tm – Monterey Formation (Mid‐Late Miocene) 1.99 13.8%
Tts – Marine sandstone (Miocene) 0.82 5.7%
Tvq – Vaqueros Formation – sandstone (Oligocene) 0.03 0.2% Tva – Basaltic andesite (Oligocene) 0.03 0.2%
Kgdm – Porphyritic granodiorite of Monterey (Cretaceous) 4.37 30.3% Kgdc –Granodiorite of Cachagua (Cretaceous) 1.75 12.1%
Kqds – Hornblende‐biotite quartz diorite of Sobranes Point (Cretaceous) 4.45 30.9%
Total Watershed Area 14.42 100.00%
In the lower SJC watershed, the Kgdm granodiorite unit is also mapped on south side of SJC and the western side of the Seneca Creek watershed (Map 3). Continuing southeastward from Seneca Creek, the ridge between Seneca Creek and Van Winkley Canyon is mapped as Cretaceous granodiorite of Cachagua (Kgdc). Rounding out the southeast section of the watershed, in the Williams Canyon drainage and the headwaters of SJC, the geologic unit is mapped as Cretaceous hornblende‐biotite quartz diorite of Soberantes Point (Kgds).

At the bottom of the canyons, along the main stem of SJC, narrow bands have been mapped as alluvium and mudflow sediments from the Holocene, recent geologic deposits. These deposits are the result of periodic, episodic upland landslides and fluvial erosion processes.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1016, Packet Page 1116 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 8

2.2.2 Geologic structure
San Jose Creek has developed a course more or less along the alignment of the San Francisquito fault zone, one of several faults which accommodate the geologically rapid uplift of the northern Santa Lucia Mountains. The stream has eroded through the fractured rock along the fault zone throughout its course. Other faults, mainly unnamed and only partly mapped likely shape the hydrography of the Animas watershed and other areas north of the creek. (Clark and others, 1997; Rosenberg, 2012)
San Jose Creek is one of four major Monterey Peninsula streams which have asymmetric watersheds, with the south side of the catchment rising to substantially greater heights, and contributing the preponderance of winter peak flow, base flow sustained by groundwater surcharge, and sediment. Other such streams are Cachagua Creek, the Carmel River in Carmel Valley, and Canyon del Rey. In each case, the main stem streams flow along fault systems which have raised the bedrock block to the southwest much more rapidly than the northern sides of the bedrock in their catchment.

2.2.3 Implications of uplift
The continuing history of uplift prevailing during the past several million years has a number of implications for managing anadromous fish in SJC. First, the vast majorities of sediment and groundwater entering the stream from its flanks come from the southwestern side, both because the greater elevations impart more potential energy from this side, and because streams are longer since they drain larger watersheds. The longer tributaries run through longer and deeper canyons from which sediment may be delivered. Secondly, terraces deposited along streams (alluvial) or the coastline (marine) occur on both sides of the fault, but extend higher on the southwest side. Elsewhere in the Carmel watershed, terraces are visible to heights of 1500 feet or higher (Hecht, 1981; Richmond, 2009), and they seem to be identifiable throughout the Seneca watershed and along Palo Corona Road, albeit growing fainter with elevation. Terraces are important modifiers of sediment delivery, because they can (1) store sediment, which accumulates on the flattened treads, and (2) develop clay accumulations or ‘claypans’ in the subsoil over periods of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The accumulated clays on the tops of ridges south of SJC are important influences on the erodibility of the deeply‐weathered granitic rocks that supply much of the sediment to SJC. This is further described in Sec. 2.3, immediately below and on the soil hydrologic group map. Finally, north‐facing slopes on hills southwest of the creek are much damper (more mesic) than the drier (more xeric) slopes to the northeast of the stream. A combination of exposed versus shelter aspect, a drier shale geology to the north of the creek, and less groundwater availability to the north all combine to make contrast across the watershed much more articulated than in many other coastal watersheds.

2.3 Soils
The soils throughout the SJC watershed are primarily loams with varying degrees of slope. A summary of soil types and characteristics within the watershed are summarized on Table 2.5.

Also shown on Table 2.5 are K factors for the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). These factors range from 0.05 to 0.37, with higher K factors indicating more potential for erosion.

Regarding runoff potential, about 45‐percent of the soils are hydrologic group B (moderate infiltration) and 18‐percent are in hydrologic soil group A (high infiltration), indicating a Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1017, Packet Page 1117 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 9 majority of the watershed has significant infiltration rates and lower surface runoff rates, mostly on the south side of the main stem of SJC(Figure 2.1).

Table 2.5. Soils within San Jose Creek Watershed according to NRCS Websoil Survey (USDA, 2014), San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Areas with predominately moderate to high runoff potential (hydrologic soils groups C and D) are located in the Animas Creek drainage and on the north side of the watershed on the ridge within private land holdings and the Santa Lucia Conservancy. The overall distribution of the higher‐runoff soils is similar to ridge top and terrace areas with more deeply‐developed soils which tend to have accumulated clays in their subsoils. Group C soils are found largely in areas where Tertiary sedimentary rock (particularly the Monterey diatomites and shales) is mapped.

This area contrasts with the Kgdm geologic formation with greater potential for erosion and sediment source, in part because this unit is where most of the older terrace deposits are found, with the related clayey subsoils. Site visits and oblique aerial photography have confirmed piping, rill erosion and gullies occur in this area.

Map unit Map unit name acres % HSG whole soil rock free Jc Junipero‐Sur complex 1,728     18.7% B 0.10 0.17
Ga Gamboa‐Sur complex 1,468     15.9% A 0.05 0.15
CcG Cieneba fine gravelly sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent slopes 1,376     14.9% D 0.15 0.28 SoG Sheridan coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent slopes 1,039     11.3% B 0.17 0.17 JbG Junipero sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent slopes 811         8.8% B 0.10 0.15 SfF Santa Lucia channery clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, MLRA 15 667         7.2% C 0.05 0.17 Sg Santa Lucia‐Reliz association        573 6.2% C 0.05 0.20 SoE Sheridan coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 453         4.9% B 0.17 0.17 ShE Santa Ynez fine sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 213         2.3% D 0.32 0.32 GkB Gorgonio sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes 206         2.2% A 0.10 0.20 GfF Gazos silt loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes 19         0 2.1% C 0.20 0.37 Rc Rock outcrop‐Xerorthent association        151 1.6% D LcG2 Linne‐Shedd silty clay loams, 50 to 75 percent slopes, eroded          71 0.8% C 0.28 0.28 EbC Elder very fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes          60 0.7% B 0.37 0.37 GfE Gazos silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes          53 0.6% C 0.17 0.37 LmE Los Osos clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes          43 0.5% D 0.28 0.28 ScE San Andreas fine sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes          43 0.5% B 0.20 0.20 ShC Santa Ynez fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 29           0.3% D 0.15 0.32 NcE Narlon loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes 22           0.2% D 0.28 0.28 Am Arnold‐San Andreas complex            7 0.1% B
LeC Lockwood shaly loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes          12 0.1% B 0.15 0.28 PdC Pfeiffer fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes            6 0.1% A 0.20 0.20 ScG San Andreas fine sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent slopes            5 0.1% B 0.24 0.24 SoD Sheridan coarse sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 1             0.0% B 0.17 0.17 Totals for Area of Interest 9,229 100.00%
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) A 1,681     18% High infiltration, low runoff Hydrologic Soil Group B 4,161     45% Moderate infiltration when wet Hydrologic Soil Group C 1,555     17% Slow infiltration when wet Hydrologic Soil Group D 1,832     20% Very slow infiltration when wet Universal soil loss
K factor
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1018, Packet Page 1118 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 10 Figure 2.1. Soils within San Jose Creek Watershed by Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) according to USDA NRCS, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Conventional K factors and USLE analyses – originally developed for low‐gradient cropland and weather patterns found east of the Rockies ‐‐ tell literally only half the story in the northern Santa Lucias. One‐third to one‐half the sediment yield in this region is generated solely during episodic events, such as post‐fire runoff, major floods, large landslides, and droughts (c.f., Hecht, 2000). For example, our work at Los Padres Reservoir following the 1977 Marble‐Cone fire demonstrated that sedimentation in the lake during the first year following the fire equaled the total sedimentation recorded during the prior 38 years (Hecht, 1981). Since the fire cycle averages 40 to 60 years in this region, the data support the conclusion of one‐third to one‐half of sediment production is directly associated with episodes, and the importance of integrating episodic sedimentation for habitat or watershed‐management purposes. In the SJC watershed, sediment generation during chronic or normal periods may come predominantly from the ridge tops and soils of Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D; sediment delivery to the stream following fires or major regional storms or following landslides, on the other hand, come largely from the Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1019, Packet Page 1119 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 11 hillslopes above the channels – which almost universally fall within the HSG B in the SJC watershed. 5
The work of the Balance/PWA team occurred during a period with virtually no episodic disturbance. Our observations and measurements characterize a period of chronic erosion, quiescent relative to the periods of episodic sedimentation. Overall‐ long‐term sediment yields may be expected to be half‐again‐as‐large, or twice as large, as those measured during this study. Erosion may focus on the hillslopes during periods of episodicity, rather than chronic periods where the ridgetops may be focus of sediment entrainment as identified in the USLE analysis above.

One of the definitions of an episodic period (Hecht 1993) is when processes predominate which otherwise happen very seldom during a more normal, or chronic, period. One only has to walk the lower reaches of Williams Canyon – strewn with debris‐flow or mudflow lobes – to understand that very different processes can predominate in this watershed following episodic disturbance. What this means for steelhead passage or rearing habitat may warrant consideration as part of the ultimate watershed planning.

2.4 Slope gradients
Slope gradients in the SJC watershed range from very gentle (<5%) to very steep (>65%).

Typically the gentlest slopes are found within the low lying valleys of higher order (3rd through 5th) stream channels and along ridgetops (Map 4). The distribution of slope gradients by subwatershed are displayed in Table 2.6. The subwatersheds of Seneca, Van Winkley, and Williams have the highest occurrence (30‐35%) of hillslopes with gradients greater than 65% based on overall subwatershed area. Hillslope gradients exceeding 65% in steepness represent only 7% of the Animas Creek’s total area. Based on distribution, steeper slopes are more likely to occur within Cretaceous granitics (Kgdm, Kgdc, Kqds) and along lower order (1st and 2nd) tributaries (Maps 2‐4).

Table 2.6. Slope gradient area by Subwatershed, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Slope
gradient
Range (%)
Subwatershed area (mi2)
Animas
Creek
Seneca
Creek
Van Winkley
Canyon
Williams
Canyon
Remaining
San Jose
Creek
Total
<35% 0.78 0.56 0.15 0.33 2.94 4.76
35‐49.99% 0.43 0.51 0.20 0.41 1.38 2.93
50‐64.99% 0.28 0.55 0.25 0.54 1.23 2.85

5 This discussion describes the inherent natural erodibility of the landscape, and it should be noted that roads and other land management activities can alter sediment yield estimates regardless of the underlying geologic and soil characteristics.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1020, Packet Page 1120 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 12 ≥65% 0.11 0.68 0.26 0.69 2.14 3.88
Total 1.60 2.30 0.86 1.97 7.69 14.42
Hillslope gradient is an important factor when studying slope stability and erosion potential.

Erodibility of soils, the competence of underlying geology, and anthropogenic influences may be consistent throughout a portion of a particular subwatershed. However, the erosion potential will be greater in areas where hillslope gradients exceed 65%. In addition, saturated soil conditions, episodic ground shaking events (earthquakes), and forest fire affect slopes with steeper gradients more significantly, and can result in a higher likelihood of erosion or failure.

Refer to Section 4 for additional discussion of slope gradients influence in upslope erosion and sediment delivery.

2.5 Infrastructure and natural resources

2.5.1 Road Networks
The majority of road networks within SJC
watershed exist on MPRPD, SLC, and BSLT
properties within Animas Creek, Seneca Creek,
and Williams Canyon subwatersheds as well as
along upper and lower SJC main stem. Over 86
miles of road have been constructed throughout
SJC for an average road density of 6 mi/mi2 of
watershed area (Table 2.7). The majority of
roads within SJC watershed were originally
constructed for the purposes of commercial
logging and ranching. Other than the
approximately 5 mi of paved roads found
within the private landholdings located in the
upper SJC watershed, the majority of the roads
are native and unsurfaced (Figure 2.2 and
Figure 2.3). As the State, MPRPD, BSLT, and
SLC purchased land and began undertaking the
major hurdle of conservation and protection of
the watershed’s resources, they in turn
inherited the serious erosion problems
associated with the existing network of poorly
constructed, poorly maintained legacy roads
that were eroding and delivering sediment
directly into SJC and its’ tributaries.

The majority of the SJC roads lie within the 10,000 acre Palo Corona Regional Park (Palo Corona). Vehicle access to many of these roads is limited to MPRPD and partnering agency staff. The public can be granted access via permits authorized by MPRPD, with use restricted to foot traffic only. In addition, cattle grazing is permitted throughout Palo Corona between February and June.

Figure 2.2. View of a typical upper slope native,
unsurfaced road found within SJC Watershed
with insloped road shapes and concentrated
runoff. Photo taken in Animas Creek watershed.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1021, Packet Page 1121 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 13

2.5.1.1 Animas Creek Road Network
The road density within the Animas Creek subwatershed is 8.53 mi/mi2, the greatest density of any subwatershed (Table 2.7). Of the nearly 14 mi of road, most consist of native, unsurfaced, and low‐use roads (Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3). Ownership is dominated to the west by BSLT and MPRPD and to the east by a very large private landholding. Motorized travel along the road network is primarily utilized by BSLT and MPRPD staff to access SJC tributaries and Palo Corona property for maintenance, conservation, protection, and research. In addition, foot traffic along these roads is granted to the public via access permits obtained from MPRPD, and cattle can be seen along roads as they graze these lands February to June.

Figure 2.3. View of a typical upper slope native, unsurfaced road found within SJC Watershed with insloped road shapes, concentrated runoff and locally retreating cutbanks.

Table 2.7. Road/trail Network of San Jose Creek by Subwatershed, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Subwatershed Estimated length of
road/trail (mi)
%
total
Road densitya
(mi/mi2)
Animas Creek 13.65 16% 8.53
Seneca Creek 17.49 20% 7.60
Van Winkley Canyon 4.30 5% 5.00
Williams Canyon 13.17 15% 6.69
Remaining San Jose Creek 37.84 44% 4.92
Total Road Mileage in the Watershed 86.45 100% 6.00
a Study area is 14.42 mi
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1022, Packet Page 1122 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 14

2.5.1.2 Seneca Creek Road Network
Roads found within the Seneca Creek subwatershed represent 20% of all roads in SJC watershed (17.49 mi), and has the 2nd highest road density within the SJC watershed (Table 2.7).

Roads found within the subwatershed lie almost entirely within Palo Corona and are primarily used by MPRPD and BSLT staff to access lands for maintenance, conservation, protection, and research. In addition, visitors are granted access to roads for hiking on a permitted basis only.

Roads include streamside, lower, mid, and upper slope roads. Roads exhibit varying degrees of use and maintenance. The streamside road segments in the subwatershed cross the main stem of Seneca Creek several times. Although the majority of the main stem crossings are fords (“wet” crossings) and do not contain road fill; several culverts remain, which require continued maintenance (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4. View of a native, unsurfaced streamside road found within Seneca Creek Subwatershed. Photo depicts road crossing Seneca Creek main stem at inventoried instream site #29 (Map 5).

2.5.1.3 Van Winkley Canyon Road Network
Van Winkley Canyon subwatershed has the fewest road mileage within the of SJC watershed at only 4.3 mi (Table 2.7). Primarily located along the upper slopes of the subwatershed along the ridgelines separating Van Winkley Canyon from Seneca Creek and Williams Canyon, these roads lie within Palo Corona and are infrequently used by motorized vehicles and receive primarily foot traffic only.

2.5.1.4 Williams Canyon Subwatershed Road Network
Approximately 85% of Williams Creek is encompassed by Mitteldorf Preserve, owned and managed by BSLT. Nearly 95% of all roads/trails (12.42 mi) located in the watershed fall within the Preserve, with the exception of approximately 0.75 mi located in the lower extent of the watershed on SLC property. Roads include streamside, lower, mid, and upper slope roads (Figure 2.5). Roads exhibit varying degrees of use and maintenance. All roads are unsurfaced Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1023, Packet Page 1123 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 15 and utilized primarily by BSLT and SLC staff with granted access provided to Preserve visitors by permit only.

2.5.1.1 Remaining San Jose Creek Road Network
The remainder of the SJC watershed contains approximately 44% of all roads/trails in the watershed (Table 2.7). Roads found along the lower SJC main stem consist of a main streamside access road that is maintained and managed by the State utilized primarily by State, BSLT, and MPRPD staff to access their properties for maintenance, conservation, and research. There are several short mid and upper slope road segments that exhibit less frequent use. All roads in the lower watershed are native and unpaved. However, many roads found within the upper SJC watershed are paved (approximately 5 mi) as they are part of the Rancho San Carlos gated community. All of the most recent (<40 years old) road building has occurred in the upper watershed within this private community.

2.5.2 Williams Canyon Infrastructure
Other than the road and trail network discussed in Section 2.4.1.5, there exists a residential lodge, a bunkhouse and barn within the Mitteldorf Preserve located in the Williams Canyon subwatershed. BSLT has future plans to update this infrastructure so it may be utilized to host nature camps and outdoor education and research programs.

2.5.2.1 Santa Lucia Conservancy and Private Land Holdings The upper watershed and headwaters of SJC are within the Santa Lucia Conservancy and private land holdings. A limited and gated paved road with driveway offshoots runs the length of the watershed. The Santa Lucia Conservancy manages the wildlands for ecosystem protection and interaction with the private land holders. Overall, SLC controls about 20,000 acres, with land‐management activities conducted by a knowledgeable staff with a record of continuity. The Conservancy and its board take what may be characterized as a long‐term perspective driven by conditions of approval, commitments to owners, and an endowment which makes land‐management feasible. The SJC watershed occupies about 20 percent of the Conservancy, including some of its steepest and least developed areas.

Figure 2.5. View of native, unsurfaced roads found within Williams Canyon Subwatershed.

Left photo depicts a lower‐streamside road and the right photo depicts a mid slope road. Both roads are located on BSLT property.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1024, Packet Page 1124 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 16

2.5.2.2 California State Park Lands
The lower part of the watershed and mouth of SJC at Monastery Beach is owned by California State Parks. Monastery Beach is actively used for a wide range of day activities, often accessed from parking along Highway 1, with trails running from the road shoulder through the dunes and across the long‐shore lagoon. Upstream of the highway the State Parks lands are not open to the public. There is limited access for State Parks staff to ranger residences. About 0.4 miles upstream of the Highway 1 crossing, the MPWMD operates a stream gage. Also, the MPRPD recently acquired a property (Whistler Property) just beyond the State Parks land that is accessed via the State Parks service road. The MPRPD is currently in discussions which will lead to a plan for managing the new property.

2.6 Historic aerial photography review
PWA reviewed historical aerial photography covering portions of and/or the entire SJC watershed6. Sequential historic aerial imagery was reviewed to identify locations of upslope sediment sources in the watershed. Sources of digital imagery used in the review included historical aerial photographs, Google Earth imagery (1994‐2012), and NAIP imagery (USDA, 2010 and 2012). Historical aerial photographs included the following years and views: 1949 (view of ~1mi2 of lower watershed and mouth); 1954 (view of lower watershed, downstream from Van Winkley); 1966, 1971 (view of ~95% of watershed, missing uppermost Williams and SJC main stem); and 1985 (view of ~95% watershed, missing central sliver). Google Earth imagery provided views of the entire watershed from the following years: 1994, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2007‐2012. In addition, 2010 and 2012 NAIP imagery of the entire watershed was reviewed.

Due to the lack of stereographic pairs and poor resolution of historical photos, a quantitative analysis identifying the distribution and delivery estimates of upslope erosional features (i.e. landslides) was not completed. However, based on inspection of the available photographs and imagery available for review, PWA can ascertain that the largest identified upslope erosional features have been present since the earliest historical photos. These include many linear gully features associated with headward migration of 1st order streams that are underlain by Miocene sedimentary rock types on the south facing hill slopes in the middle watershed (Gullies #1‐3, Map 5). It appears as if some of these gully features have enlarged and continue to develop through “subsurface piping and collapse processes” since their inception. For further discussion of these upslope sediment sources, refer to Section 4.1.

In general, shallow debris slide scars are concentrated on the higher elevation and steep, headwater grassland hill slopes within Williams Canyon, Van Winkley Canyon and in Seneca Creek (Figure 2.6, Map 5). The debris slides are found to occur most often within the Cretaceous granitics bedrock types (Kgdm, Kgdc, Kqds) and along hill slopes with gradients >65% (Maps 3 and 4). Very few shallow debris slides are present within the gentler‐sloped Animas Creek watershed, as well as on other south facing, non‐granitic hillslopes along the north side of the main stem SJC. Most of the deep‐seated rotational landslides do occur in these areas of sedimentary bedrock, as discussed below.

6 Certain years of historical photographs do not cover the entire watershed.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1025, Packet Page 1125 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 17 Figure 2.6. Upper Williams Canyon headwater hill slopes underlain by granitic bedrock displaying a high frequency of shallow debris slides.

2.7 Oblique aerial photography
As requested in the Request for Proposals, two fixed oblique photography flights were planned.

The first was for initial reconnaissance at the beginning of the study to identify the locations and distribution of larger erosional features present within the watershed, and to plan field reconnaissance on the ground. A second flight was planned after the winter of 2013 to locate any watershed changes brought about by storms and erosion in water year 2013.

On February 16, 2013 the first flight was performed to help identify significant upslope erosional features in the SJC watershed (Appendix A). This flight was conducted after preliminary historical photogrammetry review and study of the 2010/2012 NAIP imagery as discussed in Section 2.5 above. Observations during the flight taken at the beginning of the study did not reveal any significant features not identified during the photography review. The second post winter aerial flight was not performed due to the lack of significant and prolonged winter rains that are necessary to trigger hill slope landslide responses. A typical photo from the fixed wing survey is shown on Figure 2.6.

Appendix A documents historic aerial photos, oblique aerial photos, and ground based photographs that show watershed conditions. The photographic appendix further illustrates the results generated through the aerial photography review.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1026, Packet Page 1126 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 18

3. HYDROLOGY AND GAGING
In conjunction with field investigations on sediment sources, fish barrier analysis, and lagoon geomorphology, a network of stream gages was installed and monitored for Water Year 2013 and then continued an additional 4 months through January 2014. This gaging network consisted of three temporary gaging sites, located to work in conjunction with existing gaging and previous gaging activities. In addition, storm measurements were performed throughout the watershed.

3.1 Past and current gaging within watershed

3.1.1 MPWMD gaging
Since 1999, the MPWMD has maintained a stream gage site near the mouth of SJC on California State Parks land, about 0.4 miles upstream of the Highway 1 bridge and Monastery Beach.

During this watershed study, the Balance team worked closely with the MPWMD staff to share flow data and measurements at the lower gage site.

The MPWMD historic average daily flows are shown on Figure 3.1. Annual peak flows from the gaging program are shown on Table 3.1. We applied a Log Pearson Type III distribution to calculate estimated discharges for some commonly‐used design intervals. Results are reported in Table 3.2. The 2‐year flow is estimated at about 130 cfs and the 100‐year flow is estimated at about 700 cfs, as determined from the 15 peak‐flow data points (Table 3.2).

Figure 3.1. Mean daily flow at MPWMD gage, Water Years 1999 to 2013.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1027, Packet Page 1127 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 19 Table 3.1. Annual peak flows for MPWMD gaging site near mouth of San Jose Creek. Data Courtesy of MPWMD. Water year 2013 data are provisional.

Water
Year
Peak flow
date
Gage
height
(ft)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
1999 2/9/1999 5.54 400
2000 2/13/2000 5.09 293
2001 3/4/2001 3.85 83
2002 12/2/2001 3.40 40
2003 12/16/2002 4.02 103
2004 2/25/2004 4.35 146
2005 3/22/2005 4.71 204
2006 4/4/2006 5.26 440
2007 2/27/2007 3.09 20
2008 1/28/2008 4.09 122
2009 3/4/2009 4.74 189
2010 1/20/2010 4.56 164
2011 3/24/2011 4.94 232
2012 4/13/2012 3.27 29
2013 12/2/2012 3.81 69
Table 3.2. Flood frequency flows based on peak flows from MPWMD gage near mouth of San Jose Creek. Based on Log Pearson Type III distribution analysis. Source data courtesy of MPWMD.

Recurrence
Interval
(years)
Peak
Discharge
(cfs)

1.25 58
2 132
5 267
10 369
25 503
50 604
100 705
200 804
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1028, Packet Page 1128 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 20

3.1.2 CSU Monterey Bay gaging
California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) maintained two stream gages in Water Year 2011 (October 2010 to October 2011), one on the main stem of upper San Jose Creek, upstream of Van Winkley Canyon and the other on Williams Canyon (Figure 3.2) These gages were installed to better understand watershed yield by subwatershed and to optimize conservation strategies (Paddock, 2012). Each gaging station recorded water stage at 15‐minute intervals, which were converted to discharge using rating curves. These data are shown on Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4. Peaks flows at the gages for Water Year 2011 are estimated as 15 and 25 cfs and base flows are estimated to range between 0.1 and 0.7 cfs for Williams Canyon and Upper SJC, respectively.

Figure 3.2. Location of CSUMB gaging sites for water year 2011, adapted from Paddock (2012).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1029, Packet Page 1129 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 21 Figure 3.3. Discharge record from CSUMB for Water Year 2011 on upper San Jose Creek, based on Emily Paddock’s work (2012). Note that 1 cubic meter per second (cms) is about 35.3 cfs. Rating curve is commented to be accurate up a discharge of 0.59 cms. Peak flow estimated as 25 cfs.

Figure 3.4. Discharge record from CSUMB for Water Year 2011 on Williams Canyon Creek, courtesy of Paddock (2012). Rating curve is commented to be accurate up a discharge of 0.2 cms (or about 14 cfs). Only one stage discharge rating curve was apparently used. Peak flow estimated as 15 cfs.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1030, Packet Page 1130 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 22

3.1.3 Other studies and gaging
Balance Hydrologics has assisted the Santa Lucia Conservancy with hydrologic services since the early 1990s, which also includes flow and sediment measurements at the v‐notch weir site, about 1 kilometer downstream of the CSUMB upper SJC gage site (Map 5). Flow measurements from the Balance Hydrologics studies are plotted on Figure 3.5. Base flow at the V‐notch site was noted to range from 0.03 to 0.78 cfs (13 to 193 gpm) between 1990 and 1998, based on flow measurements between April and September (Hecht and Napolitano, 1995). For comparison, the base flow from the temporary gage during this study at the v‐notch site, ranged from 0.01 to

1.0 cfs, starting in April 2013. See section 3.2 below for more information on the temporary gage.

Figure 3.5. Past flow measurements at v-notch weir on San Jose Creek by Balance Hydrologics (Hecht and Napolitano, 1995).

3.2 Temporary extended stream gaging and rain gage network Three temporary gages were installed and maintained for this watershed study. The locations of these gages were strategic to coordinate with field work, sample sediment transport rates, align with gaging from past studies, and expand data collection to areas previously unstudied.

For each location depth sensors were installed. Streamflow and sediment‐transport rates were measured to develop rating curves, then applied to each day’s measured flow depths, as is done to complete a flow record through water year 2013. Locations of these gaging sites are shown on Map 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1031, Packet Page 1131 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 23 In addition, to provide stronger findings on storm response to precipitation, two temporary rain gages were installed in the SJC watershed to describe local orographic and other regional differences in precipitation within the watershed. Data from these gages would then be related to the gaged flows.

3.2.1 San Jose Creek at V-notch weir downstream of Van Winkley Canyon With permission from the Santa Lucia Conservancy, Balance installed several gages near the former gaging site, just upstream of an abandoned concrete v‐notch weir in the main stem of San Jose Creek7 (Map 5 and Appendix B). The gaging instrumentation included:
(a) a pressure –depth sensor at the V‐notch weir,8
(b) an open channel flow station placed upstream to measure high flows (c) a non‐recording station where periodic measurements could be on an unnamed north‐bank tributary approximately 200 feet upstream, and
(d) a non‐recording station where periodic measurements could be made on SJC just upstream of the unnamed north‐bank tributary.

Flows in Van Winkley Canyon could be estimated by the difference between the upstream and downstream measurements. We arranged this approach as we could not find a good place to establish a temporary stream gage on lower Van Winkley, where much of the flow in the lower portions of this tributary goes through dense root masses or through subsurface channels.

Specific conductance (an index of dissolved solids in a stream) and concurrent water temperature were measured each time that we visited the individual gaging sites in this complex.

Each of the two recording stations was equipped with a second transducer to record water level, to provide redundancy and backup in case one was to fail. The open‐channel flow gage provided better measurement conditions for higher flows (exceeding 50 cfs), and would have proved functional if the V‐notch weir were to be obstructed by wood or sediment, as it had been during Balance’s prior work at this gage in 1990‐1995. Also, the upstream open channel flow station provided a location for measuring bedload and suspended sediment. Site visits to this

7 On Sept. 29, 1990 – during the fourth consecutive dry year-- Mr. Hecht walked San Jose Creek from upstream of the Williams confluence to the western boundary of Rancho San Carlos. He found the most baseflow a short distance upstream of the V-notch weir. Since one of this study’s objectives was to measure baseflow, we decided to reoccupy this gage, where flow could best be measured. 8 The V-notch weir was installed in the early 1980s by CDM Engineers, which had planned to measure flow using the same weir equation from measured depth of flow using a transponder positioned about 6 feet above the water level. This proved unworkable, as the weir pool was immediately filled with sediment. Three other weir/transponder stations were constructed on the other main streams of Rancho San Carlos, which sought a water supply for a proposed community of about 3200 homes once envisioned.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1032, Packet Page 1132 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 24 station included monthly visits for maintenance and storm visits for flow and sediment transport calibration points.

As it happened, essential no high flows occurred during the gaging period, so the V-notch weir (with its high precision for measurement) became our primary gage at this site. Stage measurements from the level logger, located in the pool upstream of the V-notch were measured to establish depth of flow above the low point in the v-notch, from which we computed depth using a standard v-notch weir equation. to determine stream flow.

The redundancy of the two set ups provides a more secure data collection, if one setup was compromised by stream conditions or instrument malfunctions.

3.2.2 Seneca Creek just upstream of confluence with San Jose Creek To evaluate flows on Seneca Creek and expand on previous gaging efforts, a station was installed near the mouth of Seneca Creek (Map 5 and Appendix B). The installation included a level logger placed in a somewhat rectangular cross section, bounded by root-bound stream banks. The gage was installed on MPRPD land. Visits to gage included storm measurements and monthly visits to maintain calibration and check on the status of the sensor.

3.2.3 Water level sensor and flow at mouth of San Jose Creek A third gaging set up was placed about 30 feet downstream of the Highway 1 bridge in the SJC Lagoon (Map 1 and Appendix B). The objective was to monitor water levels in the lagoon, to help bracket its role in shaping steelhead populations in SJC. This was one of MPRPD’s study objectives. This sensor also was designated to monitor flow conditions in SJC as it enters the lagoon. The instrumentation for this station was a perforated PVC pipe with a level logger, a staff plate and a fence post placed into a sand bed and concealed amongst wetland vegetation.

The staff plate and station was surveyed in during the lagoon cross sections and profile.

3.2.4 Rain gages
Two rain gages were deployed for the term of the study, located as shown on Map 5. One gage was installed on a fence line at the east end of the old Palo Corona Ranch near Rancho San Carlos Road, on the ridge line, north of SJC about midway through the watershed. The second rain gage was installed on the ridge on the south side of the watershed in the Palo Corona ranch area. The locations of these gages were based on geographic data gaps from other gages, access, and hydrologic diversity to assess rainfall trends in the watershed as a whole.

The rain gages were Onset rain gages (screened canisters), with event based Hobo data loggers attached to tipping buckets. Dates and times for each tip of the bucket were logged and clustered by bucket tips per hour. Locations for the gages were areas clear of trees and on fence posts above the ground, within or on structures to be secure from curious or itchy cattle.

3.3 Results

3.3.1 Precipitation
Total rainfall for the last water year at the temporary rain gages was 8.54 inches and 16.21 inches on Santa Lucia Preserve and Palo Corona ridge, respectively. The distributions of Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1033, Packet Page 1133 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 25 rainfall through the year are shown on Figure 3.6. This last year and beginning of water year 2014 has been critically dry.

Figure 3.6. Gaged flow at V-notch weir on San Jose Creek, and precipitation at two nearby rain gages installed for this study during WY2013 and the first four months of WY2014.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1034, Packet Page 1134 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 26 Figure 3.7. Gaged flow and precipitation on Seneca Creek for Water Year 2013 Figure 3.8. Gaged flow and precipitation on San Jose Creek at Highway 1 for Water Year 2013 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1035, Packet Page 1135 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 27

3.3.2 Storm flows
Discharge records for San Jose Creek and Seneca Creek are shown on Figure 3.6, Figure 3.7, and Figure 3.8. Precipitation records are also plotted on these charts for reference, as well as measured discharges.

The most significant storms occurred during water year 2013. The first was on 12/2/12 and the second was on 12/23/12. Smaller storms occurred in March 2013, but were not significant in terms of generating runoff or peak flows. For the two main storms in December 2012, at the Vnotch gaging station, these peak flows were estimated as 30.3 cfs and 19.5 cfs, for December 2 and 23, respectively. Corresponding peaks at the MPWMD station were 69 cfs and 57 cfs for December 2 and 23, respectively. Lag times between the peak flows from the V-notch to the MPWMD site were 1.75 hours for December 2 and 2.25 hours on December 23. Suspended load and bedload samples were taken during these storms.

3.3.3 Base flow
Because this last water year was very dry, the base flow dropped to very low levels and at an earlier time frame. Seneca Creek ranged from 0.3 cfs to 0.1 cfs from April to June, effectively drying out by July. Flow at the V-notch dropped from about 1 cfs to 0.1 cfs from April to August. During the summer flows at the V-notch varied from 0.03 to 0.08 cfs, rising up slightly in the fall, presumably due to reduced uptake (evapotranspiration). At the lagoon, water level records indicate the mouth of SJC went dry around June 4, 2013, corresponding to a flow of about 0.5 cfs at the MPWMD State Park gage.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1036, Packet Page 1136 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 28

4. SEDIMENT ANALYSIS

4.1 Upland sources

4.1.1 Road/trail networks ‐ Overview
Sediment delivery to stream channels from roads, trails, and road/trail networks has been extensively documented, and is recognized as a significant impediment to watershed health and salmonid habitat (Furniss et al., 1991; Higgins et al., 1992; Harr and Nichols, 1993; Flosi et al., 1998; NMFS, 2000, 2001). Road/trail related sources of sediment include both episodic site specific and chronic erosional processes. Episodic sediment production requires large and/or persistent rainfall and consequent peak flows to trigger catastrophic geomorphic changes, both along the road system as well as within stream channels. Common site‐specific sources of road‐related sediment production can be, but are not limited to: stream crossings, landslides, point source springs, ditch relief culverts, and sites of downslope concentrated flow (i.e. gullies). Chronic sediment sources are primarily associated with “hydrologically9 connected road segments” including the road bed, cutbank and inboard ditch (i.e. road surface sites). All road‐related erosion, whether from an episodic or chronic sediment source, is man‐caused and is deemed controllable, accelerated sediment production in a watershed.

A stream crossing is a ford or structure on a road or trail (such as a culverted road prism or bridge) installed across a stream or watercourse (USDA Forest Service, 2000). When they erode, sediment delivery from stream crossings is always assumed to be 100%, because any sediment eroded is delivered directly to the stream. The size of the stream affects the rate of sediment movement, but any sediment delivered to small lower order or ephemeral streams has the potential to be transported to downstream fish‐bearing stream channels.

Large volumes of erosion may occur at stream crossings where culverts are too small for the drainage area and storm flows exceed culvert capacity, or when culverts become plugged by sediment and debris. In these instances, flood runoff will spill onto or across the road or trail, eroding the road fill. Alternately, the stream crossing may have a diversion potential, which means that streamflow is diverted down the road or trail, either on the running surface or in the ditch, instead of spilling over the fill and back into the same stream channel. In this case, the roadbed/trailbed, hillslope, and/or stream channel that receives the diverted flow may become deeply gullied or destabilized. These hillslope gullies can become quite large and have the potential to deliver large quantities of sediment to stream channels (Hagans et al., 1986).

Diverted streamflows that discharge onto steep, unstable slopes can also trigger large hillslope landslides.

According to the California Forest Practice Rules (CalFire, 2013), stream‐crossing culverts must be able to convey a 100‐year storm flow10 as well as sediment and organic debris in transport

9 Hydrologically connected describes sites or road segments from which eroding sediment is delivered to stream channels (Furniss et al., 2000).
10 A 100-year flow is the discharge that can be expected to occur, on average, once every 100 years.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1037, Packet Page 1137 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 29 during high flows to be considered adequately sized (Weaver et al., 2006). Undersized culverts do not have the capacity to convey streamflow during periods of heavy rainfall, and are more likely to become plugged by sediment and debris. Many stream crossing culverts in the SJC watershed are substandard, i.e., are not large enough to convey a 100‐year flow, or are installed at too low a gradient through the stream crossing fill to prevent plugging. Improper culvert installations such as these were once common because they required shorter lengths of pipe to convey flow through the road, and were therefore used to cut costs. However, in the long run these cost‐cutting measures prove detrimental to erosion control and maintenance costs because the culvert discharges water onto unconsolidated road fill, rather than into the pre‐existing stream channel, which exacerbates erosion of the outboard, downstream fill face.

Road‐related landslides are masses of road fill (and in some cases additional hillslope material) with the potential to fail during heavy and/or prolonged rainfall events. Sediment delivery as a result of road related landslides are the easiest to correct or prevent, generally requiring excavating the unstable road fill and sidecast material and redepositing it in a stable, permanent location. However, deep‐seated landslides are typically more problematic, and usually technically infeasible to treat. Refer to Section 4.1.2 Hillslope landslides and gullies for discussion of non‐road related landslides.

Point‐source springs are erosion sites where spring flow shows potential to produce and deliver road‐related erosion. Flow from multiple springs may become concentrated where there are inadequate drainage structures on a road, which can lead to the formation of downslope gullies or fillslope failures. Ditch relief culverts (DRCs) are drainage structures that move water from a road or trail inboard ditch to areas beyond the outer edge of the road or trail fill. This results in flow from the inboard ditch, which may include both runoff from the running surface and shallow subsurface flow intercepted by the cutbank, being drained onto slopes below the road or trail (Pacific Watershed Associates, 1994). When properly spaced, DRCs limit the quantity of water available to cause erosion at any single location, allowing flow to disperse and therefore reduce the likelihood of gullies forming at their outlets. Downslope concentrated flow refers to sites of focused runoff channeled from road surfaces and other upslope areas during periods of intense rainfall. Gullies often form at the point where the concentrated flow exits the road or trail surface. Refer to Section 4.1.2 Hillslope landslides and gullies for discussion of non‐road related gullies.

Road surface sites are segments of hydrologically connected road or trail with chronic11, accumulated runoff and uncontrolled flow from long sections of undrained road surface and/or inboard ditch. By definition, road surface sites are not associated with other sediment delivery sites, but rather are individual locations in which accumulated road drainage is the sole source of erosion and sediment delivery. (Segments of hydrologically connected road that are directly adjacent to other delivery sites are categorized separately, as chronic sources and discussed below). Sediment discharge at road surface sites typically occurs at low spots in the road where concentrated flow exits the road and travels downslope, often forming gullies.

Chronic sources of road related sediment include the unpaved road surfaces and their associated ditches and cutbanks. The chronic production and delivery of fine sediment to stream channels

11 Erosion from road or trail surfaces and cutbanks occurs on an ongoing basis, and hence is referred to as chronic.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1038, Packet Page 1138 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 30 is the result of: (1) mechanical pulverizing and wearing down of road or trail surface by vehicular, equestrian, bicycle and foot traffic; (2) erosion of unpaved road or trail surfaces by raindrop impact and runoff during periods of wet weather; (3) erosion of the inboard ditch by runoff during wet weather; and 4) erosion of the cutbank by dry ravel, rainfall, slope failures, and brushing/grading practices.

4.1.2 Road/trail networks – Previous watershed assessments Several road assessments have been conducted in recent decades within the SJC watershed.

Two of the most recent, comprehensive investigations were conducted by PWA in 2007 and by California Geological Society (CGS) in 2009. Of the approximately 86.45 miles of road/trail identified in the SJC watershed, approximately 47.25 mi or 55% have been inventoried (Table

4.1). Of the 47.25 mi, 34.83 mi have been evaluated based on key structural, hydrological, sedimentological, and environmental characteristics and ranked based on their need for attention (CGS, 2010), and 12.42 mi were evaluated by a quantitative assessment utilizing approved California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual Chapters IX and X protocols (PWA, 2007). In addition, for the purposes of this study, the Project Team conducted a reconnaissance level evaluation along a minimum of approximately 25 miles of the roads within the watershed.

Table 4.1. Evaluated road/trail Network of San Jose Creek by Subwatershed, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Subwatershed
Total Estimated
length of road
(mi)
Inventoried
road length
(mi) a
% total
Animas Creek 13.65 3.82 28%
Seneca Creek 17.49 17.23 99%
Van Winkley Canyon 4.30 3.85 90%
Williams Canyon 13.17 12.42 94%
Remaining San Jose Creek 37.84 9.93 26%
Total Road Mileage in the Watershed 86.45 47.25 55% a Inventoried roads within Williams Canyon were assessed to identify sources of sediment delivery and quantify future erosion volumes (PWA, 2007). Inventoried roads within the remaining subwatersheds were evaluated and ranked based on need of attention (CGS, 2010). Many of the roads throughout the watershed downstream from the mouth of Williams Canyon were observed by the Project Team during the field reconnaissance (Balance/PWA, 2012‐2014).

In 2007, PWA conducted a road related sediment source assessment in the Mitteldorf Preserve, owned and managed by BSLT (PWA, 2007). Mitteldorf Preserve encompasses about 85% of the Williams Creek watershed. Results of PWA’s investigations revealed accelerated erosion and sediment delivery has been caused by anthropogenic practices, including logging and rural road construction. PWA field crews inventoried approximately 12.42 mi of roads/trails in the Preserve to evaluate all road/trail‐related erosion sites and their potential for delivering sediment to the local stream system. PWA identified 48 sites and 3.78 miles of hydrologically Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1039, Packet Page 1139 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 31 connected road lengths recommended for treatment12. If left untreated, approximately 5,585 yd3 of sediment was estimated to be delivered from these erosion sites and road surfaces to the stream system over the next decade. The assessment determined that approximately 36% of the roads/trails were hydrologically connected. Of the 48 road/trail related sites, 72% were stream crossings, 10% were landslides, and 18% were “other” sites13. Of the approximately 5,585 yd3 of estimated future sediment delivery from sites recommended for treatment, 66% was attributed to hydrologically connected road surfaces, 29% was attributed to stream crossings, 4% to landslides, and less than 1% to “other” sites (Table 4.2) (PWA, 2007).

Table 4.2. Estimated volume of future sediment delivery for sites and road surfaces assessed within Williams Canyon Subwatershed, San Jose Creek Watershed Study, Monterey County, Californiaa.

Sediment sources
Estimated future
sediment delivery
(yd3)
Percent
of total
Stream crossings 1,646 29%
Landslides 235 4%
“Other” sitesb 13 1%
Hydrologically connected road and cutbank surfaces
adjacent to other sediment delivery sitesc 3,691 66%
Total 5,585 100%
aData was taken from theWilliams Creek Watershed Erosion Prevention Planning Project, Monterey County, California (PWA, 2007) and only includes sites and road surfaces recommended for treatment. bOther sites include ditch relief culverts, point source springs, sites of concentrated downslope flow (including gullies), and hydrologically connected road or trail segments not adjacent to other sediment delivery sites (“road‐ surface sites”).
cDecadal sediment delivery for unsurfaced roads, assuming a 25 ft wide road surface and cutbank contributing area, and 0.2 ft lowering of road and cutbank surfaces per decade.

As part of the 2007 assessment, PWA assigned treatment priority ratings to sites or groups of sites based on the combined evaluation of 4 criteria that consider different aspects of remediating erosion problems. Higher priority ratings apply when erosion potential, sediment delivery, treatment immediacy, and cost effectiveness are all moderate or high, with lower priority ratings correspondingly based on lower ratings for the combination of these criteria.

Of the 48 sites, 6 (12%) were rated higher priority, 23 (48%) moderate priority, and 19 (40%) low priority.

In 2009‐2010, the California Geological Survey (CGS) evaluated 42 miles of road within the Palo Corona Regional Park (CGS, 2010). Of the 42 miles of road, nearly 35 miles were located within

12 The discrepancies in reported mileage are due to minor adjustments made to the roads/trails GIS layer between the 2007 assessment report and 2010 implementation.
13 Other sites include ditch relief culverts, point source springs, sites of concentrated downslope flow (including gullies), and hydrologically connected road or trail segments not adjacent to other sediment delivery sites (“road surface sites”).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1040, Packet Page 1140 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 32 SJC watershed. Although primarily a GIS analysis project, approximately 14 miles were assessed on the ground. The purpose of the CGS study was to evaluate the roads based on key structural, hydrological, sedimentological, and environmental characteristics and then rank them based on their need for rehabilitation. In the CGS study (2010), roads were evaluated for 58 physical criteria (i.e. slope, width, surfacing, etc.) and 80 hydraulic criteria (i.e. water bar, x‐ drain culvert, and ditch lead out). Based on this evaluation, entire road segments were then ranked according to treatment priority (green = low priority, yellow = moderate priority, and red = needs attention).

According to the assessment, 134 road segments and 278 hydrologic features were identified. Of the 42 miles evaluated, 2 (5%) were rated higher priority (red), 15 (36%) moderate priority (yellow), and 25 (59%) were categorized low priority (green). Of the 147 stream crossings identified in the assessment, 71 (48%) were rated higher priority (red), 62 (42%) moderate priority (yellow), and 14 (10%) were categorized low priority (green)14.

14 Some road segments weave in and out of the watershed boundary. Therefore, for ease of discussion and as to not misrepresent CGS data, results are reported to include all evaluated roads (including the approximately 7 miles located outside the SJC watershed boundary).

Figure 4.1. View of
undersized culverted stream
crossing along Seneca Creek.

Figure 4.2. View of hydrologically
connected road reach with no
permanent drainage structures
installed to disperse road runoff.

Note ruts forming along outboard
road tread.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1041, Packet Page 1141 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 33 Based on the reported results of both road assessments, erosional and sedimentological issues resulting from the decline of these “legacy” roads were identified and the importance of treating them to reduce the continued sediment delivery to SJC streams and overall impact to the health of the watershed was emphasized. Both assessments identified stream crossing sites as the single largest road related problem that directly deliver sediment to streams in the SJC watershed (Figure 4.1). The CGS assessment identified approximately 4 stream crossings per mile of road; PWA assessment identified approximately 3.5 crossings per mile.

In addition, both assessments identified hydrologic connectivity as a major problem in contributing sediment noting that the lack of permanent road drainage features (such as rolling dips, DRCs, roadshaping) or improper spacing of these features exacerbates road surface erosion and results in increased sediment delivery to SJC tributaries (Figure 4.2).

4.1.3 Road/trail networks – Future sediment delivery estimates Based on recommendations provided in these two road assessments, the BSLT has undertaken most of the erosion control and sediment prevention treatments within Williams Canyon, whereas the results of the CGS study are beginning to be addressed throughout Palo Corona Regional Park. Where implementation has occurred, these treatments are effectively reducing anticipated future sediment delivery volumes to the SJC watershed, however, additional work is needed to protect aquatic habitat from anthropogenic sediment sources.

Based on PWA’s 2007 assessment in Williams Canyon, BSLT secured funding from CDFW in 2009 to implement sediment reduction treatments along 8.1 mi of assessed road within Williams Canyon. This work, completed in 2010, substantially diminished the delivery of coarse and fine sediment to Williams Creek by preventing approximately 6,030 yd3 from episodic and chronic sources of erosion15. Anecdotal observations have revealed that the waters entering SJC main stem from Williams Canyon are noticeably clearer since the roads were treated in 2010 and therefore are assumed to be transporting much less sediment.

During the 2013 field reconnaissance, recently implemented treatments addressing road‐related erosion were observed along road segments within Seneca Creek and the remaining SJC.

Unfortunately, there is no quantifiable documentation on how much sediment can be estimated and prevented from entering the system resulting from these implemented treatments.

However, if we assume that these treatments are effective, we can make a conservative estimate that approximately 2 mi and 7 mi have been recently treated within Seneca and remaining SJC, respectively, and exclude those segments from any extrapolations to estimate future sediment delivery volumes.

15 Data taken from PWA Report No. 11085701 (PWA, 2010)
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1042, Packet Page 1142 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 34 Utilizing the quantitative data from PWA’s 2007 Williams Canyon assessment; site density reported from both the 2007 and 2010 evaluations; observations from the 2012‐2013 field reconnaissance; and a GIS analysis of geology, hillslope gradient, road location, and road density, we have developed a very conservative rough estimate of potential future sediment delivery volumes resulting from untreated road related sources from unpaved roads within the SJC watershed. The following lists the assumptions that were used to achieve the very conservative future sediment delivery estimates listed in Table 4.3:
 3 stream crossing sites per mile of road
 30 yd3 of future erosion per stream crossing site
 25% hydrologic connectivity16
 20 ft wide contributing area (includes road, ditch, and cutbank)  0.15 ft road lowering rate per decade17
 Estimated volumes are reported over 30 years for episodic sources 10 years for chronic There are exceptions to the above list of assumptions; these exceptions include the following:
 2 mi of road within Seneca Creek: mileage is assumed to have been treated as identified during the 2012-2013 field reconnaissance (refer to footnote “e” in Table 4.3)  6,030 yd3 of sediment delivery to Williams Canyon: volume was prevented as a result of treating 8.1 mi of road in 2010 (refer to footnote “f” in Table 4.3)  Remaining untreated 5.07 mi within Williams Canyon: a different set of assumptions was used for calculating sediment delivery estimates (refer to footnote “f” in Table 4.3)  12 mi of road within the remaining SJC: 5 mi of road is paved and 7 miles is assumed to have been treated as identified during the 2012-2013 field reconnaissance (refer to footnote “g” in Table 4.3)

16 Based on the ~35% hydrologic connectivity of assessed road mileage in Williams Canyon we adjust to 25% for a more conservative extrapolation to other subwatersheds, which on average are not as steep 17 We are utilizing a moderate-low surface lowering rate of 0.15 ft per decade and a narrower road/cutbank/ditch width as a conservative extrapolation to use in subwatersheds other than Williams Canyon.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1043, Packet Page 1143 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 35 Table 4.3. Estimated future erosion anticipated from road related (upslope) sources by subwatershed based on extrapolation of field estimates, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Subwatershed
Estimated
length of
road (mi)
Estimated future
sediment delivery
volume per mile (yd3) a
Estimated future
sediment delivery
volume within
subwatershed (yd3) a
Total future
sediment
delivery
volume within
subwatershed
(yd3) d episodic b chronic c episodic b chronic c
Animas Creek 13.65 90 145 1,230 1,980 14,210
Seneca Creeke 17.49 90 145 1,575 2,535 4,110
Van Winkley
Canyon

4.30 90 145 385 625 1,010
Williams Canyonf

5.07 175 340 885 1,725 2,610
Remaining San
Jose Creek g 25.84 90 145 2,325 3,745 6,070
Total 66.35 ‐‐ ‐‐ 6,400 10,610 17,010
a Values are based on the assumptions listed above in the text, rounded to the nearest 5 yds3, and reflect estimates over 30 years for episodic sources and 10 years for chronic sources if left untreated. b Based on 3 sites per mile and 30 yds3 of sediment per site for mileage except as noted under footnote “f” for Williams Canyon.
c Based on 25% hydrologic connectivity and utilizing 20 ft contributing area and 0.15 ft road lowering per decade to assume 145 yd3 per mile for all subwatersheds except as noted under footnote “f” for Williams Canyon. dTotal combines episodic and chronic estimates.
e Estimated future delivery volumes do not include any potential sediment delivering from the ~2 mi of previously treated road segments in Seneca Creek subwatershed.
f Estimated future delivery volumes exclude the 8.1 mi of treated roads and use the following estimates based on calculated averages from actual field measurements from the 2007 assessment: 3.5 sites per mile, 50 yds3 of sediment per site, 35% hydrologic connectivity, 25 ft contributing road, 0.2 ft lowering rate. gEstimated future delivery volumes do not include any potential sediment delivering from the ~7 mi of previously treated road segments and ~5 mi of paved road segments within the remaining SJC subwatershed.

Table 4.3 details the extrapolated results of estimated future sediment delivery from road related sources within SJC watershed broken out by subwatershed. It must be clearly stated that these estimates are based on a combination of actual field measurements, extrapolated assumptions based on field measurements, GIS analysis, and observations from field reconnaissance and were not generated by direct field measurements.

Therefore, based on these assumptions and extrapolated data, if the currently untreated roads and trails are not properly re‐designed (i.e. storm‐proofed ) and maintained, we estimate that approximately 6,400 yd3 of sediment will be delivered from sources of episodic erosion and 10,610 yd3 of sediment from sources of chronic erosion during the next decade alone. This leads to an overall estimate of approximately 17,010 yd3 of sediment that can be anticipated to be delivered to SJC watershed by road/trail related sources (Table 4.3).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1044, Packet Page 1144 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 36

4.1.4 Hillslope Landslides and Gullies
During the aerial photogrammetry review, the aerial flight, and field reconnaissance of SJC watershed, the Project Team observed landslides and gullies scarring the hillside throughout the watershed. Due to the canopy cover, slim budget and lack of available tools (i.e. stereographic photography) the Project Team was unable to systematically evaluate the occurrence and magnitude of the hillslope erosional features. However, observations as to the location, type, and relative size of these features were noted throughout the watershed.

For the purposes of this investigation we have categorized non road-related upslope erosional features as either landslides or gullies. Landslides refer to “the movement of a mass of rock debris, or earth down a slope” (Cruden, 1991). These features are typically identified as having a “tear drop” shape, or modified ellipse with a measurable geometry of length, width, and depth. For simplicity sake, a landslide can be thought of as having three main features: (1) a surface of rupture, (2) a zone of depletion, and (3) a zone of accumulation. The surface of rupture is the trace along which the original ground surface meets the “mass in motion”. The most visible portion of this trace would be the main scarp, or the upper edge of the landslide consisting of undisturbed, usually steep, ground. The zone of depletion is the portion of the landslide where original ground has been displaced (i.e. moved down slope) and this material lies below the original ground surface. Finally, the zone of accumulation is the area where the displaced material has come to rest and lies above the original ground surface (Cruden and Varnes, 1994).

States of landslide activity include “active” or “inactive”. Active landslides are those that are currently moving. Inactive landslides have not moved in more than one annual cycle. If the cause of an inactive landslide is still relevant, the slide is dormant; if the cause is no longer relevant the landslide is either abandoned or stabilized (CDMG, 1999). Active landslides typically exhibit denuded surfaces and are visible throughout the watershed when reviewing historical and current photogrammetry. In addition, inactive landslides may or may not exhibit denuded surficial expressions. Even if undetectable through historical or current imagery, large inactive features may be visible throughout the watershed when viewing the landscape using 3m digital elevation models (DEM). The geometry of larger inactive features is visible as altered topography within the outline of the feature (Appendix A).

Landslide potential is affected by a variety of factors, primarily including: underlying geology, stream network characteristics, hillslope gradient, and vegetation (CDMG, 1999). Given these factors, both active and inactive landsliding features have been identified to be predominately located within the portions of the watershed: underlain by Cretaceous granitics (Kgdm, Kgdc, Kqds), along hillslopes with gradients >65%, in steep convergent, headwall swale or zero‐order basins, at or below major breaks‐in‐slopes, and within grassland setting (Maps 3 and 4, Appendix A). The highest concentration of shallow debris slides is located on headwater hillslopes in the Seneca, Van Winkley Canyon and Williams Canyon watersheds (Map 5). The only difference in slope/geologic characteristics in the identification of inactive features is that they are also found within isolated portions of steep forested slopes primarily in the southern half of the watershed.

Another key factor contributing to landslide potential within the watershed is soil saturation that generally requires prolonged precipitation to pre‐dispose segments of hill slope to failure.

The higher concentration of debris slides in the granitic rock types is influenced by soil characteristics. The granitics are generally deeply weathered resulting in low tenacity or strength of the rock, and the overlying soil profile in a deep sandy soil with clay‐rich horizons, Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1045, Packet Page 1145 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 37 including the C horizon. The high permeability of the sandy soils coupled with the clay mineralogies or cohesion results in the soil mass becoming saturated and gaining considerable weight during intense storms. When the pore pressure exerted by the water exceeds the strength of the soil and rock, the deeply weathered mass can essentially liquefy resulting in an increased potential for failure via gravitational processes (Wagner, 1991).

Non-road hillslope gullies are upslope erosional features typically caused by increased concentration of subsurface or surface flow.18 Although these features have measurable length, width, and depth dimensions their shape is distinctly different from landslides both in plan and cross sectional views. The shapes of the gullies are linear as opposed to the more elliptical shape of landslides (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3. Active hill slope gullies predominately concentrated in Miocene sandstone bedrock on planar, south facing slopes.

Most of the hillslope gullies identified in the SJC watershed were found to be located in the shallower soils on south facing grassland and chaparral slopes located to the north of the main stem SJC. The majority of these hillslopes are either underlain by deeply weathered Miocene sedimentary rock types or the Cretaceous granodiorites (Map 3). Most are occurring upslope of the initiation points of 1st order streams. Several gullies are developing on planar hill slopes, and the gullies are occurring on a wide range of hill slope gradients, from 25% to over 65% in steepness (Map 5, Appendix A). While most of the larger gully networks are visible on the 1950’s and 1960’s aerial photography, field observations suggest the gullies are continuing to evolve, albeit at a slower rate than in the past. Most of the hillslope gullies have 0.5:1 or steeper sideslopes, exhibit a noticeable lack of vegetation, have semi-active headcuts and exhibit sideslope failures (Figure 4.4, Figure 4.5, and Figure 4.7). Most importantly, subsurface soil pipes or linear cavities are common on the Miocene sandstone rock types, and many appear to be occurring near the base of the soil profile with the underlying weathered bedrock (Figure 4.6

18 The hillslope gullies are not road-related, i.e. caused by stream diversions at stream crossings along a road, or caused by concentrated runoff along long lengths of road bed or inboard ditch.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1046, Packet Page 1146 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 38 and Figure 4.8). As subsurface near surface groundwater enlarges the soil pipes through time, the overlying soil collapses into the void resulting in an expansion of the surface water drainage network (i.e. headward growth of the 1st order drainage network).

Historically, the initiation of hillslope gullies has been attributed to over-grazing practices, changes in the composition of native grassland communities, as well as oceanic salt spray in coastal landscapes (Cook, 1978). Currently, grazing practices are limited in the SJC watershed, and it is unclear how, if at all, cattle could be influencing the widespread observed piping processes.

Figure 4.4. These large active hillslope gullies forming on gentle, planar slopes have over‐ steepened sideslopes, lack vegetation and are prone to periodic sideslope collapse. The gullies are a major source of fine sediment production in the SJC watershed.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1047, Packet Page 1147 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 39 A field reconnaissance was undertaken at three south-facing hillslope gullies located above two 1st order tributaries to SJC main stem located midway between the Seneca Creek and Van Winkley Canyon (Map 5, SB #1-#4). Gully #1 is approximately 260 ft in length, ranges from 30 to 165 ft in width and 1 to 8 ft in depth. Gully #2 has two channels: one 115 ft in length and one 310 ft in length with widths ranging between 10 and 25 ft and depths ranging from 1 to 3 ft.

Gully #3 is approximately 420 ft in length, ranges from 5 to 20 ft in width and 1 to 3 ft in depth.

Utilizing void measurement techniques, past erosion volume from the gully features ranges from 500yd3 to approximately 3,000yd3. Since the gully features are voids on the landscape, and the proximity of these gullies to 1st order streams results in the inevitable annual direct delivery of past and future sediment volumes into SJC.

Hillslope landsliding and gullying is an important and significant upland source of sediment.

Based on visual observations and rough estimates of potential sediment delivery volumes from upslope erosional features, hillslope erosional features are more likely to result in larger volumes of sediment delivery than compared to road related sources. However, it is the frequency and the likelihood of occurrence, the proximity to a stream, and causal mechanisms that should be noted.

Hillslope landsliding
typically occurs
during an episodic
event such as: periods
of heavy and/or
prolonged rainfall,
groundshaking (i.e.
earthquakes),
wildland fire, or any
combination thereof.

These episodic
landslide events
occur less frequently
than events that
would typically cause
road related erosion.

In addition, many of
these landslide
features occur in
upper slope,
headwater locations,
far enough away
from any watercourse as to have more limited input of sediment into the stream system. Finally, mechanisms that cause these hillslope features to occur are not as strongly linked to anthropogenic activities (compared to road-related sediment sources), and cannot as easily be prevented or mitigated. Therefore, in terms of management recommendations, the focus of reducing upslope sources of sediment should be on addressing mitigations related to existing road and trail networks. See Section 7.4 Recommendations for future work for further discussion.

Figure 4.5. View of the upslope initiation point of Gully #2 (Map 5). Note the lack of vegetation, near vertical sideslopes and scarp forming at red arrow.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1048, Packet Page 1148 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 40 Figure 4.6. Upslope of the head of active hillslope gullies one can observe linear, mole‐like tracks of collapsing ground suggesting sub‐surface groundwater piping is occurring.

Figure 4.7. View looking downslope at actively enlarging and oversteepened sideslopes of gully #1 just upslope of abandoned road. Red arrow identifies 6” scarp and 6’ wide block of collapsing earth into gully axis. .

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1049, Packet Page 1149 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 41 Figure 4.8. Collapse structures such as shown in the photo are common on gentler hill slopes underlain by the Miocene sandstone bedrock. A combination of animal burrowing and groundwater piping processes may be largely responsible for the observed expansion of the existing gully network.

4.2 Instream sources

4.2.1 Background Stream Inventories
In 2006, staff from CDFW and California Conservation Corps (CCC) conducted stream inventories along SJC from the mouth upstream approximately 8.06 miles (Nelson, 2006a) and along Seneca Creek from the confluence with SJC upstream approximately 2.02 miles (Nelson, 2006b). The purpose of the stream inventories were to document habitat types and channel type; collect stream temperature and stream flow readings; sample fish; and collect estimates of substrate composition and embeddedness, shelter rating, canopy density, bank composition and vegetation. Inventories followed methodologies described in CDFW’s California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual (Flosi et al., 1998). In addition to the quantitative data collected during the stream inventories, the survey team also documented observations on sources of erosion, land use, landmarks, existing or potential fish barriers, and any other issues that may impact stream habitat. Reported interpretations during the 2006 stream inventories revealed that the most obvious sources of sediment in both inventoried reaches along SJC and Seneca Creek could be attributed to road-related stream crossings and some minor bank erosion. In addition, crews documented visual evidence of turbidity and sediment fans along the lower reaches of unnamed lower order (1st and 2nd) tributaries to both Seneca and SJC.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1050, Packet Page 1150 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 42 The Project Team reviewed the comprehensive 2006 stream inventory reports prior to conducting our instream sediment source assessment. The Team documented any changes in identified features and/or the occurrence of new features since the 2006 studies relative to our investigations. In addition, we reviewed the CDFW Memorandum detailing observations of Warden Lester Golden in the summer of 1962 and likewise noted significant changes (CDFW, 1962; reprinted in the present report as Appendix D).

4.2.2 PWA Instream Sediment Source Site Assessment Objectives and Methodology The instream field assessment had three main objectives: (1) identify instream sources of sediment resulting from erosion; (2) identify instream obstructions that may be causing erosion, causing diversion, and/or retaining sediment; and (3) identify any potential fish barriers. This section will focus on instream sediment sources resulting from erosion and retention. For more detail on identified fish barriers, please refer to Section 5.

Instream sources of sediment include: bank erosion, streamside landsliding, road crossings, and retained sediment behind instream obstructions (log jams and dams). In order to identify instream sources of sediment, PWA assessed 5.45 miles, or 8% of all 1st through 5th order stream mileage in the watershed. This included 13% of 3rd order streams, 16% of 4th order streams, and 54% of all 5th order streams in the SJC watershed (Table 4.4). Stream order was identified utilizing the Strahler stream order system. This system, developed in 1952, is a simple method of classifying stream segments based on the number of tributaries upstream. A stream with no tributaries (headwater stream) is considered a first order stream. A segment downstream of the confluence of two first order streams is a second order stream. Any nth order stream is always located downstream of the confluence of two (n-1)th order streams (Strahler, 1952).

Table 4.4. Stream length and average drainage density of San Jose Creek by Strahler order, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

San Jose Creek watershed
Strahler order
Total
1 2 3 4 5
Total channel length in San Jose
Creek Watershed (mi) 36.72 14.47 7.15 4.98 6.87 70.19 mi % of total channel length, by
order 52% 21% 10% 7% 10% 100%
Length sampleda (mi) ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.90 0.81 3.74 5.45 mi
Length sampled (%) ‐‐ ‐‐ 13% 16% 54% 8%
Study area 14.42 mi2
Stream density 4.87 mi/mi2
aOf the 5.45 mi of stream assessed, 3.74 mi (5th order channels) was assessed along the San Jose Creek main stem and the remaining 1.71 mi (3rd and 4th order channels) was assessed along Seneca Creek.

Inventoried sites for the instream sediment source assessment were identified and mapped only if they were judged to have delivered > 5 yd3 of sediment to the stream within the last 20 years, or had the potential to deliver greater than 5 yd3 of material to the stream in the future. In addition, log jams were only mapped if the feature was: (1) impeding flow or downstream migration of bedload; (2) causing a diversion or resulting in >5 yd3 of erosion; and/or (3) Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1051, Packet Page 1151 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 43 presenting a temporary or permanent barrier to fish. For each site identified, PWA staff recorded a series of field observations including: (1) detailed site description; (2) nature and magnitude of past, present, and potential erosion problems (including retained sediment); (3) likelihood and activity of erosion or slope failure; (4) causes of erosion (instream and/or hillslope); and (5) potential to impede fish migration (Appendix C). In addition, where applicable, PWA field staff evaluated the potential for erosion, retention, and sediment delivery and collected field measurements (width, depth, and length of the past/potential sediment source area) to derive erosion/retention and sediment delivery volumes (Table 4.3).

For the purposes of this study, bank erosion is defined as stream bank erosion caused by lateral migration of stream flows (i.e. flow deflection or stream undercutting) into alluvial, colluvial or bedrock banks, or stream channel incision (vertical down cutting) caused by fluvial processes.

Bank erosion does not include streamside hillslope failures (mass wasting). Hillslope failures were only identified as landslides if there was no evidence that active fluvial processes were aggravating the problem.

4.2.3 PWA Instream Sediment Source Site Assessment Results The instream assessment identified 57 sites: 3 bank erosion, 1 landslide, 38 log jams, 12 road‐ related stream crossings, 2 dams, and 1 bedrock cascade (Table 4.5; Map 5; Appendix C). Of the sites identified during the instream assessment, 4 sites were determined to be potential fish barriers.

The instream assessment identified 200 yd3 of past sediment delivery from instream erosion sites during the past approximately 20 years, and estimated 155 yds3 of future sediment delivery from the 57 mapped sites (Table 4.6). Past erosion at bank erosion sites accounted for 87% or 175 yd3 of the past erosion (Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10). Future bank erosion sites were estimated to potentially contribute 155 yd3 or 54% of all future sources of sediment derived from instream sources, with road‐related culverted stream crossings sites as the second largest contributor to future sediment delivery volumes at 110 yds3 or 39% (Table 4.6).

Table 4.5. Inventoried instream site types, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Site types # of sites Percent of
total
# of sites
determined to be
a fish barriera
Bank erosion 3 5% ‐‐
Landslide 1 2% ‐‐
Log jam 38 67% 3
Other
Road crossing 12 21% ‐‐
Dam 2 3% ‐‐
Bedrock Cascade 1 2% 1
Total number of sites 57 100% 4
a Fish barrier sites include 3 log jams (#33, 41, 50) and 1 “Other” site, a bedrock cascade (#7).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1052, Packet Page 1152 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 44 In addition to identifying future
sediment sources resulting from
erosion, there is a similar volume of
retained sediment that was measured
within the channels behind log jams
and dams. This retained volume has
the potential to remobilize into the
stream system during a singular
event. The majority of retained
sediment identified during the
instream survey was found stored
behind log jams and not other
obstructions (i.e. dams). Field
estimates of the retained sediment
behind these log jams typically did
not exceed 20 yd3, such as Site #24
inventoried along Seneca Creek
(Figure 4.11). However, the larger
dams, such as site #47 which was profiled have resulted in larger retained sediment volumes >100 yd3. Of the 40 instream obstructions, 38 were log jams and 2 were dams. Of these 40 sites, 33 were found to be retaining sediment upstream, 4 were found to be causing a diversion, 4 were found to be causing erosion, and 3 were found to be potential fish barriers (Table 4.7, Figure 4.12 and Figure 4.13 ).

Figure 4.9. View of inventoried bank erosion site along Seneca Creek, Site #31 (Map 5).

Figure 4.10. View of inventoried
bank erosion site along SJC, Site #43
(Map 5).

Figure 4.11. Retained sediment behind log jam at Site
#24 along Seneca Creek (Map 5). This jam was not a
barrier to fish.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1053, Packet Page 1153 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 45 Figure 4.12 Log jam Site #41 on
Seneca Creek (Map 5). View from
the right bank (PWA photo 2013).

This site was identified as a fish
barrier in both PWA’s 2013
assessment and CDFW’s 2006
assessment (located within Habitat
Unit 414).

Table 4.6. Estimated past and future sediment delivery from inventoried instream sites, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Sources of sediment deliverya
Estimated past
sediment delivery
(yd3)
Percent
of total
Estimated
future
sediment
delivery
(yd3)
Percent
of total
Bank erosion 175 87% 155 54%
landslide 10 5% 5 2%
Log jama 15 8% 15 5%
Other
Road crossingb 0 0% 110 39%
Dam 0 0% 0 0%
Bedrock Cascade 0 0% 0 0%
Total sediment delivery 200 100% 285 100%
a Sediment delivery associated with log jams refer to erosion of banks or native hillside caused by the jam(s). Volume does not include retained sediment behind the jam(s) which if blown out may mobilize sediment downstream, see Table 4.7 for those volumes.
b The only road‐related stream crossings that had future sediment delivery >5yd3 were culverted (Sites #26, 29, 30).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1054, Packet Page 1154 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 46 PWA identified several smaller log jams along the 2013 inventoried reaches of SJC that were not observed nor reported on during CDFW’s 2006 assessment. There is a large stand of tan oak trees that border the stream on both hillsides around SJC stream mile 7. These trees were struck with sudden oak disease (SOD) and have died as a result. Although the SOD infected trees were observed and noted during CDFW’s 2006 instream assessment, it can be ascertained that Figure 4.13. Additional view of
inventoried log jam site along Seneca
Creek, Site #41 (Map 5). This site was
also identified as a fish barrier in both
PWA’s 2013 assessment and CDFW’s
2006 assessment, located within
Habitat Unit 414. (Photo by Nelson,
2006b)
Figure 4.14. View of inventoried log
jam site along San Jose Creek, Site #49
(Map 5). This log jam is comprised of
SOD affected tan oaks. Log jam was not
identified in CDFW’s 2006 assessment.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1055, Packet Page 1155 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 47 sometime after the summer of 2006, the tops of these SOD affected tan oaks broke off during a large wind storm and fell into the stream causing the development of the LWD/SWD jams inventoried in the 2013 assessment (Figure 4.14 and Figure 4.15; Sites# 49‐53, Map 5).

Retained sediment volume estimates behind instream obstructions were obtained by field measurements and are considered conservative estimates (Figure 4.15). In some cases it was difficult to quantify all retained sediment due to the magnitude and/or configuration of the jam.

Log jams that span greater lengths of channel (>25 ft) and/or those that contain a high volume of mixed wood and debris, as found in the recently formed SOD log jams, often obscure pockets of retained sediment.

Log jam (Site #47) was surveyed by PWA on January 25, 2013. Retained sediment located upstream of the log jam was calculated from the longitudinal profile and cross sections. Profiles and cross sections for Site #47 are found in Section 5 Fish barrier analysis (Figure 5.17 and Figure 5.18). The total volume of retained sediment estimated behind all instream obstructions inventoried during the 2013 assessment is approximately 340 yd3 (Table 4.7).

Figure 4.15. View of retained sediment behind inventoried log jam site along San Jose Creek, Site #50 (Map 5). This log jam is comprised of SOD affected tan oaks. Log jam
was not identified in CDFW’s 2006 assessment.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1056, Packet Page 1156 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 48 Table 4.7. Summary results of inventoried instream obstructions by LWD type, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Site typea # of
sites
# of sites
retaining
sediment
Volume of
retained
sedimentb
# of sites
causing stream
diversion
# of sites
causing
erosion
# of sites
acting as
barrier to fishc
LWD log
jam 4 4 25 1 1 0

LWD/SWD
log jam 24 19 250 2 3 1
SWD log
jam 10 8 25 1 0 1
Dam/falls 3 2 40 0 0 1
Total 40 33 340 4 4 3
a LWD = large woody debris (wood ≥ 1’ in diameter and ≥ bankful width); SWD = small woody debris (< 1’ in diameter); LWD/SWD = large and small woody debris.
b Volume of retained sediment poised to mobilize downstream if obstruction is removed (or blown out) was an estimate and not determined by a survey (except site #47). It is quite likely the volume is underestimated. Volume is not included in Table 4.6 claiming volumes of past/future sediment delivery. c Instream sites acting as potential fish barriers are located at log jam sites #41 and 50 and bedrock falls site #7.

Field estimates of sediment delivery volumes from all the inventoried instream features total 200 yds3 during the past approximately 20 years with another 625 yds3 estimated to be delivered during the next 30 years (Table 4.8). Approximately 83% of all past delivery volume and 66% of all future is attributed to sources found in 3rd order streams (Table 4.8). Of the 625 yds3 of future sediment poised to enter or be re‐mobilized in the system, 285 yd3 or 46% will come from instream erosion sources (i.e. bank erosion and landsliding) and 340 yd3 or 54% will come from retained sediment behind instream obstructions (i.e. log jams and dams) (Tables 4.6 and 4.8).

Table 4.8. Field estimated sediment delivery from all inventoried instream sites by stream order, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Strahler
Order
Length of
stream
(mi)
Length of stream
inventoried (mi)
Past sediment
delivery
volume
(yd3)
% of
total
Future sediment
delivery
volume
(yd3)a
% of
total
1 36.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 14.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
3 7.15 0.90 165 83% 315 66%
4 4.98 0.81 5 2% 40 9%
5 6.87 3.74 30 15% 270 25%
Total 70.19 5.45 200 100% 625 100%
a Future sediment delivery estimates from instream sources is reported over 30 years and includes retained sediment behind instream obstructions.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1057, Packet Page 1157 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 49

4.2.4 Instream Observations and Sediment Source Summary Field observations during the 1962, 2006 and 2013 instream assessments all conclusively agree on many factors that remain relatively unchanged in regards to channel characteristics, instream sediment sources, and their relation to viable fish habitat. There have, however, been significant changes in potential fish barriers noted by each inventory, please refer to Section 5 for further discussion.

In general, SJC main stem is a low gradient stream with established and quasi‐stable riffle‐pool sequences and locally bounded by well‐developed terraces. The channel exhibits a generally broad sinuosity and only locally contains tight meanders. Small point bars are present along the inside of these broad bends in the channel. The channel substrate varies as you travel from the mouth upstream to the headwaters. Sand and fine gravel dominate the channel bottoms of the lower watershed, below Seneca Creek. As you move upstream, the channel bottom exhibits a more bimodal distribution (Figure 4.16). However, sand and fine gravels are present throughout the system and are commonly a dominant substrate when viewing long reaches of SJC. Within the higher reaches in the watershed, upstream of Seneca Creek, the channel remains low gradient but becomes more entrenched, with fewer manifestations of the alluvial terraces and articulation of point bars.

Figure 4.16. View of San Jose Creek. The reach is low gradient with a well‐established floodplain along the right bank and bimodal distribution of the channel bottom.

Based on observations from CDFW (2006) instream assessments, observations and quantitative data collected during PWA’s 2013 instream field assessment, and GIS analysis of geology and stream density, we have extrapolated data to estimate total sediment delivery volumes Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1058, Packet Page 1158 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 50 anticipated from instream sources along 3rd, 4th, and 5th order channels throughout the SJC watershed (Table 4.8).

Results from this extrapolation show a conservative estimate of approximately 1,230 yd3 of sediment can be anticipated from instream sources generated from 3rd order streams and 30 yd3 of sediment from 4th and 5th order streams (Table 4.9). This estimation supports observations during both the instream assessment and field reconnaissance that lower order streams (1st through 3rd) exhibit more erosion and therefore have increased potential to deliver larger volumes of sediment to the watershed.

Table 4.9. Estimated future sediment delivery volumes anticipated from instream sources by Strahler Order based on extrapolation of field estimates, San Jose Creek Study, Monterey County, California.

Strahler
Order
Length
of stream
(mi)
Length of
stream
inventoried
(mi)
Future
Sediment
delivery a
Volume (yd3)
Sediment
delivery volume
per stream mileb
(yd3/mi)
Estimated
Sediment delivery
volume
within watershedc
(yd3)
1 36.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 14.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
3 7.15 0.90 155 172 1,230
4 4.98 0.81 5 6 30
5 6.87 3.74 15 4 30
Total 70.19 5.45 175 ‐‐ 1,290
a Sediment delivery volume per stream mile is based on inventoried instream sites and reaches only. 110 yd3 of road related future sediment measured in 3rd order reach (Sites #26, 29, 30) was not included as it is attributed as an upslope source in Table 4.8.
b Total estimated delivery volume is an extrapolation of data gathered during the instream inventory (reported over 30 years) and should be not be considered measured estimates. c Total estimated volumes are rounded to the nearest 5 yd3.

Based on field observations during the instream assessment of 3rd through 5th order channels, quantified sediment volumes resulting from instream sources, and comparing those results to observations made during field reconnaissance of 1st and 2nd order tributaries, greater volumes of instream sediment sources are likely to be generated in lower order (1st and 2nd) tributaries.

Instream erosion and sediment sources were observed more frequently and in greater volumes within these lower order tributaries through increased channel incision, bank erosion, channel enlargement due to stream diversions, and headcutting.

Although high volume instream sediment sources were found to be unlikely, 2013 field observations as well as field and laboratory analysis confirm there is a large amount of sand in the stream system. These findings were echoed through observations made in CDFW’s 1962 and 2006 instream assessments. For results of sediment analysis of material sampled from the channel bed, floodplain, lagoon, retained lobes or fans, and point bars refer to Section 4.3.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1059, Packet Page 1159 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 51 In addition, comparing our 2013 observations with those of Nelson (2006) did not reveal any significant development of new instream sediment sources. This supports the conclusion that much of this finer grained material observed and sampled in the system is not found to be in “regular transport” but remains “in residence”. This long residence time of material also supports the interpretations that there is a great degree of channel stability found throughout the watershed, i.e. the stream is in equilibrium with its current sediment supply. Refer to Section 7 for further discussion on how longer residence time and infrequent mobilization of finer grained sediment on an episodic timeline are thought to be the largest factor controlling instream sediment within SJC on a watershed scale.

4.3 Sediment gaging

4.3.1 PWA Sediment Retention Basins (Traps)
After literature review, examination of aerial photogrammetry, and initial field reconnaissance and instream channel surveys, it became quite clear that the primary sources of sediment in the watershed were resulting from roads and hill slope processes occurring outside and upslope of the stream channels. Based on PWA’s 2007 road/trail assessment in Williams Canyon, we already had quantifiable data in which to extrapolate to the SJC’s watershed wide road/trail network. However, we did not have any quantifiable data on sediment delivery estimates from episodic mass wasting or gully processes unrelated to the road/trail network.

Therefore, in order to collect data reflecting episodic sediment delivery estimates resulting from upslope features and winter storms, PWA staff installed 4 small wooden sediment retention basins below active gullies that have experienced continued erosion as 1st order channels migrate headward, and the hillslope structures collapse as a result of concentrated flow from a combination of groundwater piping, burrowing animals, hillslope runoff, and possible perturbation due to grazing and other land use activities.

PWA installed 2 basins just
above an access road crossing
Gully #1 (SB #2 and SB #3, Map
5) and 2 basins below the
confluence of Gully #2 and
Gully #3 (SB #1 and SB #4, Map
5). All 4 sediment basins were
constructed on January 24-25,
2013 (Figure 4.17; Appendix D).

However, since the area did not
receive any significant rainfall
events during the life of the
study, there was no measurable
deposition of eroded material
from the upslope gullies found
transported to the basins during
post installation monitoring
(September 17, 2013, October 2-
3, 2013 and January 2014).

Figure 4.17. View of the installation of sediment retention basin (SB #1) placed within the failing road crossing to capture transported material from the erosion of upslope Gully #1 (Map 5).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1060, Packet Page 1160 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 52

4.3.2 Bed Sediment samples
Given the dry water year, limited bedload samples were taken during live stream flow, as they require an active bed and higher flows. Some bedload samples were taken during the December 2, 2012 storm. Particle size gradations are shown on Figure 4.18 and Table 4.10. To augment a data set for bed load transport, in lieu of bedload storm measurements, samples of bed material were taken from the stream bed in various locations to characterize the bed material previously transported.

Figure 4.18. Particle size gradation of bedload samples (blue solid lines), bed samples (red dashed lines), and beach sand (gray solid line) for SJC Table 4.10. Particle‐size analysis for bedload samples and bed samples in mm Size
Bedload Samples (storms) Bed samples (excavated)
SJC US
Animas
SJC at
MPWMD
SJC Vnotch SJC below
check dam #3
Gully
sample
1 Seneca
Sample 2
woodjam
Beach
Sand
D-16: 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.27 0.11 0.26 1.14
D-50: 0.78 0.65 0.72 0.56 0.34 0.57 1.66
D-84: 1.92 1.36 3.35 1.27 0.86 2.48 2.86
D-95 3.65 1.77 9.42 2.16 1.75 7.92 3.61
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1061, Packet Page 1161 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 53 Based on the data in Table 4.10, the D50 for the bed material is typical sand, with a slightly smaller size for bed samples (excavated), versus transporting bedload (storm sample). Beach sand had a D50 of about 1.7 to 2 mm, or coarse sand, dissimilar from the bedload transporting through the system, reflecting different littoral process on the steep beach.

4.4 Estimated sediment transport and yield
For a summary of upland source deliveries see Table 4.3.

For a summary of instream delivery see Tables 4.7 and 4.9.

4.4.1 Sediment transport in channel
We measured sediment transport at 2 continuous gages and 4 temporary gages (Map 5). These included:
a. SJC at the V‐Notch gage, immediately downstream of Van Winkley Canyon, where rates of sediment transport had been measured by Mr. Hecht and his colleagues at Balance Hydrologics during water years 1991 through 1995. Both the 2013 and the 1990s gaging efforts at this location included continuous‐record flow gaging. b. SJC about 100 feet upstream of Van Winkley Canyon, and just upstream of the confluence of an unnamed right‐bank tributary which was visibly eroding and incising.

This temporary station also allowed us to estimate sediment transport in Van Winkley Canyon by difference. It also offered a station somewhat comparable to Emily Paddock’s measurements about 200 yards upstream (no major tributary confluences). c. Seneca Creek above the confluence with SJC. We added this station about in December 2012, about 2 months after the start of the program, after our initial work suggested that it might prove informative. The station initially included a staff plate installed in December 2012, followed by a continuous recording device installed in February 2013. d. SJC above Animas Creek. This temporary station proved useful and relatively stable for sediment measurements.
e. Animas Creek above its mouth. This temporary location was measured only several times, primarily during storm events.
f. SJC at the MPWMD gage, an established continuous‐record station operated since 1999.

Our measurements of sediment transport were the first to be made at this station.

Because the station is located at a bouldery riffle, most of the sediment‐transport measurements were made about 100 feet downstream of the gage (see station observers’ log in Appendix B).

We measured both bedload and suspended sediment transport. Bedload includes the coarser fraction of sediment, which rolls and saltates along the bed. It is sampled with the a Helley‐ Smith bedload sampler, with a 0.25 ft opening, and a bag with a 0.250 mm mesh, such that all sediment finer that 0.25 mm is not collected, and considered suspended sediment. Suspended sediment is supported by turbulence in the flow, and is transported above the bed in the water column. It is collected in a vented nozzled sampler (generally an Federal Interagency Sediment Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1062, Packet Page 1162 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

San Jose Creek Wshed Assessment Final Report 03-31-14.docx 54 Program DH‐48 or DH‐81 sampler) using equal transit rate methods. Bedload plus suspended sediment constitutes total sediment load.

Bedload sediment transport rates from this study were combined with bedload transport rates as measured in Hecht and Napolitano (1995). Both data sets were measured at the V‐notch weir site. The result is a bedload transport rating curve shown on Figure 4.19. In addition, results from suspended sediment measurements were grouped with data from Hecht and Napolitano (1995) and compiled into a rating curve shown on Figure 4.20. Their work, conducted during water years 1991 through 1995, indicated that
(a) SJC transported bedload at rates within the low end of those observed in other Carmel‐area streams,
(b) bedload constituted almost half of the total sediment load, and (c) medium and coarse sand constituted most of the bedload.

The rating curve for suspended sediment may actually overestimate suspended load, as the data points collected in water year 2013 may actually represent a first flush event, and the not the average transport through the year. Estimates of the annual suspended‐sediment load using the most recent water year 2013 data indicate about 165 tons of transport (Appendix B, Form 1 for the V‐notch gage). If the curve were shifted towards the 1995 data, total suspended transport for water year 2013 is estimated as 15 tons, indicating a range of an order of magnitude for estimating transport. About 12 tons is estimated to have been transport by bedload processes (Appendix B) during water year 2013.

To further explore matters and characterize sediment transport, the risk of fire in the watershed greatly increases the potential for sediment transport. According to Hecht and Napolitano (1995), depositional rates of sediment nearly doubled for post fire watersheds, based on lake deposits below impacted watersheds. Additional considerations are also increases in sediment load due to seismic activity and landsliding. The overall observation here is that a wide range of sediment transport rates could occur, based on episodic activity in the watershed and will vary in time scale. Average annual delivery and transport is not guaranteed.

Monterey City CouncilFebruary 7, 2023

Monterey City Council
February 7, 2023