Monterey City Council
July 15, 2025

Prior to and after
project construction
After project
construction
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 92, Packet Page 246 Appendix B – Lake El Estero Diversion Project
Urban Runoff Yield Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 93, Packet Page 247

LAKE EL ESTERO DIVERSION PROJECT

URBAN RUNOFF YIELD STUDY
Prepared for

DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES
Prepared by
Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
3 QUAIL RUN CIRCLE, SUITE 101
SALINAS, CA 93907
October 2024
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 94, Packet Page 248 Version History
Version Date
Revision
Number By Comments
4/29/2014 0 Andrew Sterbenz, PE Groundwater Replenishment Project, Urban Runoff Capture at Lake El
Estero
10/7/2022 1 Andrew Sterbenz, PE Revised Report Title, Updated Rainfall Data, reissued as Draft
5/31/2023 2 Andrew Sterbenz, PE Revised Draft per City Comments and lake level monitoring data
10/2/2023 3 Andrew Sterbenz, PE Revise Draft per additional lake level monitoring data
10/9/2024 4 Andrew Sterbenz, PE Revised with additional lake level monitoring and rainfall data. Updated
Appendix C. Issued as final.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 95, Packet Page 249 Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Table of Contents
Summary of Lake El Estero Yield Study........................................................................................ 1 Section 1 - Introduction............................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Project Description........................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Water Source Description ................................................................................................ 4 Section 2 - Yield Estimation ..................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 In-Stream Flow Requirements ....................................................................................... 10

2.3 Water Rights................................................................................................................... 11 Section 3 - Facility Requirements ........................................................................................... 12

3.1 Description and Sizing ................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Costs............................................................................................................................... 14 Section 4 - Water Quality........................................................................................................ 16

4.1 Summary of Current Condition...................................................................................... 16

4.2 Effect of Diversion on Monterey Bay Water Quality .................................................... 17 List of Tables
Table i Acronyms Used in this Report........................................................................................ iii Table ii Units of Measure Used in this Report ............................................................................ iv Table 2-1: Existing Sanitary Sewer Manholes and Pipelines ......................................................... 7 Table 3-1: Estimated Capital Costs............................................................................................... 14 Table 3-2: Estimated Annual Costs, Gravity Option .................................................................... 15 Table 3-3: Estimated Annual Costs, Pump Station Option........................................................... 15 List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Capacity Curve for Limiting Sewer Segment .............................................................. 7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 96, Packet Page 250 Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Appendices
A. Figures
B. Tables
C. Conceptual Diversion Facility
D. Flow Monitoring
E. References
F. Memorandum: Sea Level Rise analysis for the Lake El Estero Diversion ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 97, Packet Page 251 Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Table i. Acronyms Used in this Report
Acronym Description
AFY, ac-ft/yr Acre-feet/year
cfs Cubic foot per second
gpd Gallons per day
mgd Million gallons per day
mg/L Milligrams per liter
µg/L Micrograms per liter
MPN Most Probable Number
ppb Parts per billion
ppm Parts per million
ASBS Areas of Special Biological Significance
ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery
BMP Best management practice
CAW, CalAm California American Water Company
CCAMP Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCRWQCB Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CSIP Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project
CWC California Water Code
DDW SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (formerly CDPH)
DWR California Department of Water Resources
GWR Groundwater Replenishment
MCWRA Monterey County Water Resources Agency
MPS Monterey Pump Station
MPWMD Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
MRSWMP Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program
M1W Monterey One Water (formerly MRWPCA)
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCS USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
PWM Pure Water Monterey
RTP Regional Treatment Plant
SB California Senate Bill
SIWTF Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility
SVRP Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant
SVWP Salinas Valley Water Project
SVGB Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
USGS U.S. Geologic Survey
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 98, Packet Page 252 Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Table ii. Units of Measure Used in this Report
Unit Equals
1 acre-foot = 43,560 cubic feet
= 325,851 gallons
1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons
1 cfs = 448.8 gallons per minute
1 mgd = 1,000,000 gallons/day
= 1,120 acre-feet / year
1 mg/L = 1 ppm
= 1 / 106
1 µg/L = 1 ppb
=1 / 109
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 99, Packet Page 253

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Summary of Lake El Estero Yield Study
The City of Monterey is considering diverting urban runoff from Lake El Estero into the municipal sanitary sewer system as a source of supply for the Pure Water Monterey Project. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) and Monterey One Water (M1W) jointly developed the Pure Water Monterey (PWM) project for the indirect potable reuse of wastewater, stormwater and surface water. The Lake El Estero Diversion was included as a potential source of supply in the PWM Environmental Impact Report. This report is an update of our 2014 analysis.

The City of Monterey maintains Lake El Estero as the central feature of the Lake El Estero Municipal Park. The Lake covers approximately 18-acres, and collects runoff from approximately

3.78 square-miles of urban, suburban and wooded area. Although the Lake is within one mile of the Monterey Bay, it does not directly connect to ocean. Lake levels are maintained for aesthetics and recreation use, and are managed to facilitate storm flows that are pumped to the ocean through a gated pipeline from the northeast corner of the lake. Additionally, a second pipe system exists the lake from the northwest corner to the beach; however, this gravity outlet is not actively operated and the infrastructure requires condition assessment.

Diverting stormwater flows into the sanitary sewer system as a source of supply for the PWM Project was analyzed. Annual runoff into the Lake was estimated to average 639 acre-feet per year. Of that, an average of 209 acre-feet per year may be diverted to the PWM Project using existing capacity in the City’s wastewater collection system. Stormwater not captured for the PWM Project may remain in the Lake or continue to be discharged to the ocean.

The drainage basin immediately to the west of the Lake drained into Lake El Estero until 1941, when a new storm sewer was installed in Figueroa Street which redirected those flows to Del Monte Beach. This basin is approximately 1.85 square-miles and produces an estimated average runoff of 237 acre-feet per year. It was recently discovered that this basin is still partially connected to Lake El Estero via a storm drain in Pearl Street. Inflows from this basin are reflected in the totals listed above.

Limited water quality sampling indicates that the water in Lake El Estero is of a better quality than City stormwater discharging directly to the Bay. The Lake provides a basin for sediments and metals to settle out of the water column. As such, it is currently one of the more benign sources of freshwater inflow to the Bay. The Monterey Bay at Del Monte Beach is not classified as an estuary, so minimum targets for freshwater inflows have not been established. Reducing the annual discharge of stormwater is not anticipated to have a negative effect on the Bay water quality. If stormwater flows that currently discharge directly to the Bay are routed through the Lake, the average quality of stormwater discharges would be expected to improve. The only noted water quality risk of the Proposed Project is an increased chance of overflows in the sanitary sewer system due to adding stormwater to a portion of the collection system. Automated in-pipe flow ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 100, Packet Page 254

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study monitoring will be required to shut off the stormwater diversion system if the pipeline capacity is needed to convey peak wet weather sanitary sewer flows.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 101, Packet Page 255

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Section 1 - Introduction

1.1 Project Description
The City of Monterey is considering diverting urban runoff from Lake El Estero into the municipal sanitary sewer system as a source of supply for the Pure Water Monterey Project. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) and Monterey One Water (M1W) jointly developed the Pure Water Monterey (PWM) project for the indirect potable reuse of wastewater, stormwater and surface water. Water from various sources is conveyed to the M1W Regional Treatment Plant where it undergoes primary and secondary treatment and is then purified at the Advanced Water Purification Facility. The purified water is conveyed to the Seaside Groundwater Basin for injection and storage and is later recovered by California American Water at municipal water wells. The Lake El Estero Diversion was included as a potential source of supply in the PWM Environmental Impact Report. This report is an update of our 2014 analysis.

M1W provides wastewater treatment for municipalities along the Monterey Bay from Pacific Grove north to Moss Landing, and inland to the City of Salinas. Wastewater is collected in an interceptor pipeline system and conveyed to the Regional Treatment Plant (RTP), located north of the City of Marina. The RTP has an average dry weather design capacity of 29.6 million gallons per day (mgd) and a peak wet weather design capacity of 75.6 mgd. It currently receives and treats approximately 17 mgd of average dry weather flow and therefore has capacity to treat additional flows. The interceptor pipeline system also has currently unused or excess conveyance capacity.

The Proposed Project will use the existing excess capacity in the wastewater interceptor system to convey source flows to the RTP, rather than constructing a parallel conveyance system.

The purpose of this study is to analyze water availability from urban stormwater runoff into Lake El Estero and provide an engineering analysis of the potential yields and the infrastructure required to capture and convey those flows to the RTP. Transfers of source water flowing in known and definite channels, such as the City of Monterey’s Lake El Estero, to the PWM Project would be a consumptive use that may require an appropriative permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). If a permit is required, this hydrologic information and analysis may be used in the permit application to the SWRCB.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 102, Packet Page 256

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study

1.2 Water Source Description
Lake El Estero is an 18-acre lake located in the City of Monterey, less than one mile from the coast. It is fed by four tributary streams and a portion of the City’s stormwater collection system.

One tributary is a named stream, Don Dahvee (formerly Majors) Creek which runs through Dahvee Park, and the other three are unnamed streams. The Lake El Estero drainage basin is 2,418 acres, or approximately 3.78 square miles.

The Lake was originally a brackish lagoon, connected by a surface stream to the Monterey Bay.

The connection to the bay was changed to pipe culverts in the 1870s when the Monterey and Salinas Valley Railroad was constructed. The Lake has been dredged several times during the last century to remove accumulated sediment. Until 1941, the drainage basin included an additional 1,186-acres to the west, extending to Huckleberry Hill, which entered the Lake through a box culvert under Pearl Street. This portion of the City stormwater system was reconfigured with the addition of a box culvert under Figueroa Street, which now carries the flow from Pearl Street to discharge into the Monterey Bay at the Municipal Wharf. In 1968, the current stormwater pump station and outfall pipeline were constructed at the northeast corner of the lake to better facilitate management of water levels in the Lake.

In 1999, Fugro West
1 prepared a study of potential non-potable water supplies for the City of Monterey and concluded that shallow groundwater percolates into Lake El Estero. Based upon their observations, groundwater inflows were estimated at 135 acre-feet/year. These inflows were found to replace evaporative losses and provide irrigation supply water to the City, which uses lake water for irrigation of the surrounding park (and cemetery). Dry season groundwater inflow was not considered for diversion to the PWM Project.

The Lake is surrounded by the City of Monterey’s El Estero Park Complex, which includes sports facilities, playgrounds, a fishing pier and a paddle boat wharf. The lake provides a habitat for fish, amphibians, reptiles and native and migratory birds.

The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) has listed Don Dahvee Creek (labeled Majors Creek on older maps) on the impaired water body listing pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for copper, lead, zinc and Escherichia coli concentrations, and has listed the Monterey Harbor as impaired for metals and sediment toxicity. The Pacific Ocean at Monterey State Beach is listed for enterococcus and total coliform. Lake El Estero is not a listed water body. A summary matrix of 303(d) listed streams is provided in Table B-1. Water quality is discussed in greater detail in Section 4 of this report. 1 Engineering Analysis, Development of Non-Potable Irrigation Water Systems, pages 24-25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 103, Packet Page 257

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Section 2 - Yield Estimation

2.1 Methodology
Estimates of surface runoff into Lake El Estero from the City of Monterey were made based on daily rainfall gage data, National Resource Conservation Service2 mapped hydrologic soil group information, and land use as shown on aerial photographs. Calculations were made for each day and aggregated by month and water year (October 1 through September 30) using the methods in SCS Manual TR-55, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Runoff curve numbers (CN) were determined based on soil group and cover. Curve numbers appropriate for scrub cover were used for areas of natural vegetation, and curve numbers appropriate for irrigated pasture were used for lawns and other irrigated ground cover. A curve number of 98 for antecedent moisture condition (AMC) II was used for all impervious areas. The runoff curve numbers used to calculate runoff varied between AMC I (with 1.4 inches or less during previous five days) and AMC III (with 2.1 inches or more during the previous five days) depending on the precipitation during the previous five days.

For each land use and soil group combination, runoff was determined for each day during the period of record. The following equations are used in the NRCS model:
( )
( ) SP
SP
R

8.0 2.0
2 −
−
=
Where P is the precipitation in inches, R is the runoff in inches, and S is the storage in inches:
10 1000−=
CN
S
Rainfall Data for Monterey was obtained from NOAA using the gages: USC00045795 Monterey, CA, for the period 10/1/1951 to 9/30/1998, gage USC00045802 Monterey WFO, for the period 10/1/1998 to 12/31/2013, and gage USW00023259 Monterey Peninsula Airport, CA, for the period 01/01/2014 to 02/14/2024 (Table B-2). The average annual precipitation from the data is 18.4 inches/year. The Lake El Estero drainage basin is 2,418 acres, or approximately 3.78 square miles (Figure A-1). Using the method described above, the total estimated runoff into Lake El Estero averages 266 acre-feet per year (Table B-4).

In Summer 2022, the City of Monterey installed a level sensor in Lake El Estero. Data from that gage was provided for the period 9/14/2022 to 2/14/2024. The sensor recorded water levels at 10- minute intervals. For this analysis, the readings at 3-hour intervals were used. The lake level and daily rainfall are shown on Figure A-6. The change in lake level was calculated for each time step and aggregated by day, as presented in Figure A-7. Positive level changes were used to estimate 2 Formerly the USDA Soil Conservation Service
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 104, Packet Page 258

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study inflows to the lake3 . Negative level changes were pumped outflows from the lake to the ocean.

Daily inflow and outflow volumes were estimated by multiplying the 3-hour change in lake level by the 18-acre surface area. The daily results are provided in Table B-5.

The observed inflows were significantly higher than those calculated using the TR-55 methodology. This appears to be caused by two factors. First, the TR-55 method attributes a significant portion of the precipitation to percolation. Due to the shallow bedrock in Monterey, some of the percolated flows migrate into Lake El Estero over time. This can be seen in Figures A-8 and A-9. The lake level rises several days after a rain event due to the subsurface inflow. The second source of inflow is an existing connection to the adjacent drainage basin. As shown on Figure A-1, the western third of the original Lake El Estero drainage basin now drains to the ocean via a box culvert in Figueroa Street. Our previous report assumed that this connection was completely severed. However, City Staff had a video inspection of that culvert performed in December 2020 and it was discovered that a 12-inch (+/-) opening exists in the wall closing off the older box culvert in Pearl Street. Based on the box culvert geometry and design slope, flows up to 5 cfs would be contained in the Figuero culvert and flow to the ocean. At higher flow rates, a portion of the flow can cross into the Pearl Street culvert and flow to Lake El Estero. There is no way to predictively estimate the flow split based on the available data.

The total recorded rainfall for the period 9/14/22 to 2/14/24 was 36 inches or a total of 7,255.4 acre-feet. The estimated inflow during the period using the TR-55 method was 501.6 ac-ft, or 6.9% of the total rainfall. The inflow calculated using lake level data was 1,288.6 ac-ft, or 17.8% of the rainfall. To account for the increased inflows in this analysis, the TR-55 results were scaled up by a factor4 of 2.4 and presented in Table B-7.

Climate averages are updated every decade, using the most recent 30-year period. The average rainfall over the period 1991-2020 was 18.4 inches, matching the long-term average over the period of record. The average runoff to Lake El Estero during that period was 678 acre-feet/year.

This is larger than the long-term average of 639 acre-feet/year because the wettest year on record (1998) occurred during the 30-year climate window.

Runoff capture from Lake El Estero was estimated for two diversion options, as discussed below.

Option 1 is to divert water from the lake into the municipal sanitary sewer system (Figure A-2).

Sanitary Sewer Manhole (SSMH) D05-052 is located near the existing El Estero Stormwater Pump Station. This is a 21-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer with a crown elevation lower than the water surface of the lake. Looking at the profile between this manhole and the M1W Monterey Pump Station, the limiting segment is a 21-inch VCP pipe at a slope of 0.0052 (Table 2-1). A flow 3 The level sensor recorded changes as small as 0.01-ft, which were considered to be wind-driven ripples.

We applied a threshold value of +/- 0.04-ft (about 1/2 inch) to capture only visible changes. 4 The calculated factor is 2.57 but is based on only 18-months of data. A lower value of 2.4 is used for the multi-year yield alanysis.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 105, Packet Page 259

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study monitor was installed in manhole D05-052 during the months of February and March 2020 (see Appendix D). The observed peak dry weather flow (PDWF) was approximately 0.9 mgd, or 630 gpm. The observed peak wet weather flow (PWWF) was 1.6 mgd, for a peaking factor of 1.8 x PDWF. We will assume a PWWF factor of 2.0 x PDWF, which would be 1.8 mgd or 1300 gpm.

Based on the pipeline slope and material, the capacity at d/D = 0.8 is estimated at 5,000 gpm (Figure 2.1), leaving an excess capacity of about 3,700 gpm for stormwater conveyance, or approximately 16 acre-feet/day. This diversion may be made with a gravity pipeline controlled by a motorized control valve.

Table 2-1: Existing Sanitary Sewer Manholes and Pipelines Upstream
SSMH Invert
Downstream
SSMH Invert D (in) L (ft) Slope
D06-004 -8.6 D06-005 -9.1 21 90 0.0056
D06-005 -9.1 D05-052 -10.89 21 223 0.0080
D05-052 -11.4 D05-061 -12.0 21 88 0.0068
D05-061 -12.0 MRW-006 -13.73 21 343 0.0052
Figure 2.1: Capacity Curve for Limiting Sewer Segment
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Flow (gpm)
d/D
Gravity Flow in 21" VCP
slope = 0.0052
Runoff capture from Lake El Estero was calculated based on two diversion limits. A lower limit of 5 acre-feet/day was assumed to be too small to initiate the runoff capture system (about three inches of rise in the 18-acre lake surface). The next 16 acre-feet may be captured by the diversion system. Runoff in excess of 21 acre-feet/day was assumed to remain in the lake and be pumped to the bay. We note here that 1 inch of rainfall currently generates about 21 ac-ft of inflow to the lake (see Table B-5, entries for 9/18/22 and 12/3/22). Using these limits, the estimated annual runoff capture was 209 AFY (see Table B-7). This varied greatly based on the annual rainfall pattern, from a minimum of 8 AFY to a maximum of 527 AFY.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 106, Packet Page 260

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study The City of Monterey and M1W Staff conducted a two-day shunt test during the period February 24-26, 2014, to assess the effects of adding water from Lake El Estero to the municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems. A temporary pump was installed at the stormwater pump station and piped to SSMH D05-052. The pump operated at approximately 1,500 gpm for a period of 50 hours, transferring 4.5 million gallons. The inflow was reported to have caused minor surcharging at the receiving manhole due to the configuration of the temporary piping. Spills or surcharging were not reported for the limiting pipeline segment downstream.

Option 2 is to install a pump station and force main to divert flow directly to the M1W Monterey Pump Station (MPS), which is approximately 0.75 miles from Lake El Estero. The MPS has a rated maximum day capacity of 20 mgd, but is currently using only 8 mgd on peak days, leaving an excess of 12 mgd, or 30 acre-feet/day (Figure A-3). Calculating the daily runoff capture using the same 5 ac-ft/day minimum limit and increasing the maximum capture to 30 ac-ft/day, the estimated annual capture volume is 305 AFY, with a range from 46 AFY (minimum) to 905 AFY (maximum) (see Table B-8). Although this yield is higher than that of the gravity diversion, the total yield is too small to justify the construction cost of a 6,800 gpm pump station and 18-inch diameter5 force main.

The adjacent drainage basin to the west of the Lake El Estero basin previously drained to the lake but was diverted directly to the bay with the construction of a box culvert in Figueroa Street. As noted above, the dividing wall between the old and new box culverts has an opening which allows some flow to pass from Figueroa into Pearl Street. The connection to Pearl Street may be enlarged to increase the volume of stormwater captured. This basin has an area of 1,186 acres (1.85 sq-mi).

Soil types were identified using the NRCS Web Soil Survey, and land cover was estimated using the USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle for Monterey, CA (Table B-9). Runoff from the basin was estimated using the TR-55 method (Table B-10). Although the basin is smaller, the calculated average annual runoff is nearly equal to Lake El Estero (237 AFY in this basin, compared to 282 AFY in the Lake El Estero basin)6 . The Figueroa basin has approximately the same amount of impervious cover (pavement and rooftops) as the El Estero basin, and the soil is predominantly Group D, which has a high runoff potential.

Enlarging the connection to the adjacent basin would increase the inflows to Lake El Estero on the day of a rain event when the stormwater collection system is flowing. The improved connection would not affect the inflow of percolating groundwater on subsequent days since those flows are already reaching the lake and are reflected in the revised inflow estimation (Table B-6). Ideally, the improved connection would increase inflows for events under 1-inch of rain to maximize the daily diversion. The amount of flow passing through the existing connection has not been measured, so we cannot estimate the yield of an improved connection at this time. Routing all or 5 Pipeline sized to limit peak velocity to 8 ft/s.
6 Average values reflect using the 30-year climate period, 1991-2020.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 107, Packet Page 261

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study most of the flow through the Lake would result in increased use of the existing stormwater pump station, which is an unnecessary cost.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 108, Packet Page 262

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study

2.2 In-Stream Flow Requirements
Lake El Estero is a land-locked water body whose water level is managed through pumped discharges to the ocean in relation to predicted storm events and flood control purposes. There is no normal connection to the ocean nor a regular or consistent means of fish passage. The City’s primary means of discharging water to the ocean is through their stormwater pump station at the northeast corner of the lake. This station moves water from the lake into a 48-inch pipeline that outfalls on Del Monte State Beach above the normal high water line. The pump station intake is screened to prevent fish in the lake from entering the station. The outfall structure is gated to prevent sand from accumulating inside the structure when not in use. If the pump station cannot divert the full volume of stormwater runoff entering the lake and the lake level rises sufficiently, water flows through two 33-inch gravity pipelines to a second point of discharge on Del Monte State Beach, west of the pump station outfall (see Figure A-2). We note here that during the large winter storms of 2022-23, the pump station was capable of maintaining the lake level and these pipelines were not relied upon.

To the east of Lake El Estero is Del Monte Lake, which is a similarly land-locked water body. To the west, the City of Monterey stormwater collection system outfalls to the bay at several locations, the nearest being at the Municipal Wharf.

The City maintains the Lake El Estero water level for aesthetics and recreational use. The proposed project should not reduce the water levels below those currently maintained by the City.

It should only reduce the volume of stormwater being discharged to the ocean.

The Monterey Harbor and the Monterey Bay South Coastline are not classified as estuaries, so seasonal freshwater inflows are not required to maintain aquatic habitats. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan was reviewed and no requirements for freshwater inflows to this portion of the Bay were listed. The reduction of urban stormwater inflows to the Sanctuary may be considered a marine water quality benefit because current lake discharges are untreated.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 109, Packet Page 263

~ Map Took
Home
eWRIMS GIS System
w«om110 ca1omYWJ1M ~c.5 CoMrol BoM'd w,t:tr Fbgf>is
GISSy$1t"l.11>,s~c,ric11111owsyou1c~lh,eft&,$t.,ct,lol" I +
::=:<mYj'CUl'°""'IMfll, i,o•Sw!,.l< , ..
~ .a Elod wate:ulghts Sun:hfo,,nta,nghts.,~.an1'"Y'
C E<fil.e.ODs
Q S!rl:aJILlllH:<
Find POO• Uilfl!I. '1rHm ll'KL
.,. ,c~
n ... Lr.-~rl.tQ,,. manu pro..:.S xt.ss to 1~b)o-1tap
,n;,,t1tS.-.:lfut .. m(l,11tllt ~ tolltlpyo.,e,cp1off
1ndlnl:ft1ttwitl,the~
~ ~ 0 1:ieJp..

O Mctddd14 r.. cooddiomofllse
&l l'rJlliyl'oliQ/
CA[)fptcf
Sagnwl .... 0
II] Tool U blls X
fl•,~ ~ "';
.. ~......... .,, • i
'i
w ,.,. !D
l
"
Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study

2.3 Water Rights
It is assumed that a state water right would be required for the diversion of urban stormwater flows from the lake to the PWM Project. The City of Monterey currently diverts water from the lake for irrigation within the surrounding park without a water right permit. That use may be considered a riparian claim, and therefore exempt from the formal permitting requirement.

Existing water rights were researched to determine if any potential conflicts may exist. The State Water Resources Control Board Electronic Water Rights Information Management System (eWRIMS) was queried to identify existing water rights in the Lake El Estero Watershed. The online GIS mapping tool was queried, and no Points of Diversion (PODs) within the Lake El Estero watershed were identified (Figure 2.). A listing of all current water rights for Monterey County was obtained using a database query, and it also returned negative results for this area.

Figure 2.3: SWRCB eWRIMS Interface
The SWRCB Water Rights Order 98-08, Declaration of Fully Appropriated Stream Systems in California, identifies those stream segments which cannot support additional authorizations for diversion. The Carmel River is listed in that decision, but Lake El Estero and its tributary streams are not. There is no regulatory prohibition on requesting a water right from this source.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 110, Packet Page 264

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Section 3 - Facility Requirements

3.1 Description and Sizing
Two conceptual designs were developed for stormwater diversion facilities from the Lake: a gravity connection to the sanitary sewer system controlled by a motorized valve and a pumped diversion with a short force main. The following design criteria and assumptions were used:
• The inlet may be located on the lake bank or within the existing pump station • The inlet must be screened to prevent fish and trash capture • The diversion pipeline will connect to the existing sanitary sewer manhole near the stormwater pump station (D05-052)
• The minimum velocity in the pipeline shall be 2 feet/second to prevent the settling of suspended sediments in the pipeline
• The maximum velocity in the pipeline shall be less than 8 feet/second to limit the friction losses
• If required, submersible pumps will be used
Two sets of conceptual design diagrams are provided in Appendix C.

The normal water level of the Lake is above the crown of the receiving sanitary sewer main, so the first option considered was a gravity connection (Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix C). This proposed facility would be configured with a new gravity inlet located on the lake bank, equipped with a fish screen, a 16-inch gravity pipeline connecting to SSMH D05-052, a flow meter, a motorized control valve, and a check valve. The discharge pipe would be above the crown of the existing pipe to provide an air-gap between the sanitary system and the lake. A control panel will be required to operate the motorized valve. It may be configured as autonomous, looking at a lake level sensor and the flow meter, or it may connect to the M1W SCADA system and be controlled remotely. Because the system will be discharging to the municipal sanitary sewer, a float switch must be installed in the receiving system to shut off this system if the receiving sewer is flowing full.

The second option considered was a pumped connection (Figures 3 and 4 in Appendix C).

Pumping will have a higher operating cost than a gravity connection but offers positive flow control. This option is configured as adding a column-type pump in the existing pump station wet well, and a similar discharge pipeline with a check valve and flow meter as in the first option.

The screened inlet must be sized to allow full flow through the screen with a maximum velocity of 1 ft/s to allow fish to escape. Assume the screen has an open area of 50%, and that 50% of the screen is blinded by trash/vegetation. For a maximum flow of 8.2 cfs (= 3,700 gpm):

Ascreen = 8.2 cfs / [(1 ft/s) x (50% screen openings) x (50% blinded)] = 32.9 sq-ft ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 111, Packet Page 265

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Minimum dimensions: 4-ft wide x 8.2-ft long if rectangular 24-in diameter x 5.25-ft long if cylindrical
For a new inlet, the lake bank at the pipe penetration should be lined with rock or concrete to prevent erosion. If rock is used, a concrete cut-off collar should be cast around the pipeline to prevent water from migrating through the pipe bedding material. An alternative option would be to core-drill through the wall of the existing pump station wet well for the new inlet. The existing station uses diesel drives for the pumps, and the fuel tank and pipeline are located underground between the wet well and the receiving sanitary sewer, preventing the installation of a new pipeline at a uniform slope, so this inlet configuration was not used for the gravity option.

The pipeline would be a 16-inch PVC (AWWA C-900 pressure pipe). The size was selected based upon the calculated velocity and friction losses in the pipeline. It was assumed that the lake would provide a minimum of 5-feet of static head between the inlet and discharge. A 16-inch main flowing at 3700 gpm would have a velocity of 5.9 feet per second and estimated losses totaling 2.6 feet (Table C-1). A 12-inch main would have estimated losses totaling 8.5 feet, which exceeds the available system head.

For the pumped option, an axial flow or column-type pump is recommended. A column may be added to the existing wet well, suspended from the pump deck and braced to the wall. The discharge piping may pass through the wall of the wet well (as shown in the diagram), or it may extend over the pump deck and then go underground. The lake provides a substantial forebay for the pump station, so a variable speed drive will not be required to match the incoming flow rate.

Using a 12-inch discharge pipeline, a 20 horsepower pump is required. However, pumps of this type are typically sized for larger flows. The closest match found using the Flygt pump catalog was a 27 hp pump, model PL 7020 with a trimmed impeller to meet the low design point.

The proposed facilities are in the mapped FEMA floodplain7 and near Del Monte Beach, which is subject to storm-driven wave run-up. The proposed submersible pumps will not be affected by storm inundation, but the electrical power and control equipment must be at least 1-ft above the base flood elevation of 11-ft (approximately 2-ft above the existing pump station deck) or housed in a water-tight vault. The anticipated effect of sea level rise is discussed is Appendix F. The mean high-water level of Monterey Bay is projected to exceed the Lake El Estero surface elevation by the year 2070. For this analysis, we assume that the gravity outfall pipes are equipped with flap gates and that the City will add improvements as needed to protect Del Monte Blvd and the existing structures along it from rising sea levels. Project-specific protections for increasing flood levels are not included.
7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 06053C0703G, April 2009 (see Appendix A) ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 112, Packet Page 266

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study

3.2 Costs
Capital costs were estimated for the two transfer station configurations, gravity and pumped.

Detailed estimates are provided in Tables C-3 and C-4 in Appendix C. Non-construction costs (design, permitting, legal, etc.) were estimated as 40% of the construction cost.

Modifications to the existing connection between Figueroa and Pearl Streets are not included in the conceptual design. Right-of-way acquisition costs were not included in the capital cost estimates. The proposed site is on City of Monterey property, so standard encroachment fees should apply.

Table 3-1: Estimated Capital Costs
El Estero
Gravity
El Estero
Pump Station
Estimated Construction Cost $249,000 $271,700
Inspection and Testing (15%) $37,000 $41,000
Construction Contingency (20%) $50,000 $54,000
Estimated Total Construction
Cost
$336,000 $367,000
Design, Permitting, Legal (40%) $134,400 $146,800
Costs are in March 2024 dollars
The City of Monterey has standard capacity charges and monthly fees for connecting to the sanitary sewer collection system, which should apply to this connection. Similarly, M1W has standard capacity charges for connection to the regional wastewater system that are based on the flow rate, the biological oxygen demand (BOD) and the suspended solids concentration, and monthly charges for wastewater treatment. These fees are not included in this estimate, because M1W is a sponsor of the Proposed Project. The primary, secondary and advanced treatment costs for this source of supply will be similar to the treatment cost for other PWM sources.

Annual operating and debt service costs for each configuration were estimated using the following planning factors:
• Debt service assumes a 30-year bond at 6.5% annual interest • Annual operation and maintenance of pump stations is estimated at 2.5% of the capital cost
• Annual operation and maintenance of pipelines is estimated at 1% of the capital cost • Electrical power cost is assumed at $0.20 per kWh
• Assume the station operates 19.3 days per year (average from runoff capture model) ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 113, Packet Page 267

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study The factors above provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of annual costs, which may be used in comparing project configurations. The estimated annual costs are provided below.

Table 3-2: Estimated Annual Costs, Gravity Option
Category Basis Annual $
Capital Repayment
Assume 30-year bond at 6.5% $336,000 $25,730
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Assume 2.5% of Pump Station Capital Cost $0 $0
Assume 1.0% of Pipeline Capital Cost $157,000 $3,925
Electrical Power
Number of operating days/year 19.3
Actuator: 1 HP (0.7457 kW/hp) 0.7
Estimated annual kWh 345
Assumed cost per KWH $0.20 $69
Total Estimated Annual Cost $29,700
Average Yield (AFY) 106
Average Cost per AF $280
Table 3-3: Estimated Annual Costs, Pump Station Option
Category Basis Annual $
Capital Repayment
Assume 30-year bond at 6.5% $367,000 $28,104
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Assume 2.5% of Pump Station Capital Cost $210,000 $5,250 Assume 1.0% of Pipeline Capital Cost $157,000 $3,925
Electrical Power
Number of operating days/year 19.3
Pump: 20 HP (0.7457 kW/hp) 14.9
Estimated annual kWh 6,908
Assumed cost per KWH $0.20 $1,382
Total Estimated Annual Cost $38,700
Average Yield (AFY) 106
Average Cost per AF $365
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 114, Packet Page 268

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Section 4 - Water Quality

4.1 Summary of Current Condition
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin (Basin Plan) designated beneficial uses of the Lake El Estero as including municipal and domestic supply, groundwater recharge, water contact recreation, noncontact water recreation, wildlife habitat, cold water fish habitat, warm water fish habitat, spawning/reproduction/early development habitat and commercial or sport fishing. Many of these are the minimum uses listed for all inland water bodies within the region, unless specific water quality information caused the RWQCB to remove a specific use (e.g., not listing water contact recreation for a stream segment listed for fecal coliform contamination). Monterey Harbor has designated beneficial uses of water contact recreation, non-contact water recreation, industrial service supply, navigation, marine habitat, shellfish harvesting, commercial or sport fishing and rare/threatened/endangered species habitat.

Lake El Estero is not listed as an impaired water body, but Don Dahvee Creek (at tributary stream to Lake El Estero) and Monterey Harbor are listed. Don Dahvee Creek is listed as an impaired water body pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for copper, lead, zinc and Escherichia coliform. Monterey Harbor is listed as an impaired water body for metals and sediment toxicity. The Pacific Ocean at Monterey State Beach is listed for enterococcus and total coliform. Water quality has been sampled and monitored for the past 15 years under various programs, including the Central Coast Long-term Environmental Assessment Network (CCLEAN), the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Citizen Watershed Monitoring Network and the City of Monterey Urban Watch. The results of these programs have been consolidated in Table B-12, for Lake El Estero, Don Dahvee (Majors) Creek, Monterey Harbor and Monterey Bay South Coastline. Sampling locations are shown on Figure A-5.

The Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program identifies water quality objectives for stormwater discharging into Monterey Bay. These and other applicable water quality standards are consolidated in Table B-13, Water Quality Objectives.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 115, Packet Page 269

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study

4.2 Effect of Diversion on Monterey Bay Water Quality
Stormwater runoff can carry pollutants such as oils, sediments and metals into the Monterey Bay, which is a National Marine Sanctuary. Lake El Estero serves as a settling basin for stormwater, which is a treatment process. Water passing through the lake carries lower levels of suspended solids than stormwater discharging directly to the Bay. Samples of the water discharged through the Lake El Estero stormwater pump station have not been collected and tested, but looking at the available water quality data in Table B-12, it may be inferred that these discharges will be of better quality than direct discharges from other portions of the municipal system. Therefore, the proposed diversion should have a little to no effect on the Bay.

Reconnecting the adjacent drainage basin to Lake El Estero through the Pearl Street box culvert should have a positive effect on near-shore water quality. Passing these flows through the lake will provide settling of suspended solids. During peak rain events, the addition of these flows to the lake will cause increased use of the stormwater pump station. The increased inflow rates will decrease the detention time in the lake, leading to a decline in water quality during stormwater pumping periods. However, the quality of the pumped discharge will be better than the current quality of flows directly discharged to the Bay.

Adding stormwater to the sanitary sewer system increases the risk of sanitary sewer overflows, which can convey bacterial pollutants into the Bay. The sanitary sewer pipeline between Lake El Estero and the M1W interceptor will flow at maximum capacity during peak diversions, so certain safeguards should be included in the project. First, the sewer pipeline and manholes should be inspected for cracks and leaking joints. If found, they should be repaired to prevent the combined flows from leaking out into the surrounding soil. Second, pressure sensors should be installed in one or more manholes to identify backwater effects in the system. If the combined storm and sewer flow exceeds the gravity capacity of the sewer main, the stormwater system can shut off to prevent the sanitary flows from spilling. The stormwater can be held in the lake for later diversion or discharged through the stormwater pump station, depending upon the level of the lake at the time.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 116, Packet Page 270 Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Appendix A: Figures
Figure A-1: Lake El Estero Drainage Basins
Figure A-2: City of Monterey Storm and Sanitary Sewer Pipelines Figure A-3: M1W Interceptor System Schematic
Figure A-4: FEMA FIRMette, El Estero Pump Station
Figure A-5: Water Quality Sampling Locations
Figure A-6: Lake El Estero Gage Data
Figure A-7: Summary of Daily Level Changes
Figure A-8: Gage Data, 10/31/22 – 11/11/22
Figure A-9: Level Changes, 10/31/22 – 11/11/22
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 117, Packet Page 271 New Monterey
Links at
Spanish Bay
Broad
Elm Ave Monterey State
Beach Sonoma Ave
Seaside
Hilby A
Naval Klmball Av Postgraduate
School
Del Rey 0
Navsuppdet
Monterey Navy
Sch Annex 420ft
• Monterey
I Monte Regional
orest Iris Canyon Airport
Park
Navsuppdet
Monterey La
Mesa Village
Lake El Estero Basin
le Beach
Vl
~ 914ft ., . Jacks Peak a.
::, County Park
I
0 ..
-0
..
::, m L'.)
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologie~~nc, Carmel-by-the-Sea METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management. EPA, NPS, USDA i u .________________________________________________________________________ DJ __, ~
[i]
FIGURE A-1 Lake El Estero Drainage Basins Schaaf~ Wheeler I 0 1,500 3,000 Feet ~ Figure A-1 CONSULTING CML ENGINEERS ---~--- NI Figure 10/2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 118, Packet Page 272 Existing Pump Station
Montere
t
005-040
Monterey Ba
005-038,yaks
005-039.
14ft
MRW-004
Receiving Sanitary Manhole .

La Playa St
005-069 006-019
005-020
O05-029C
fn,, J,, .

D05-028C
005-019
El D06-021
Estero
Lake
Jacks Park O05-040C
D06-008
El Estero Park l
006-024 006-013
006-001 ~ \I
E06-011 t 6-009
E06-032 E06-025
E05-039C E05-040C E06-03L - Ji I
E06-010 \ E06-045
f. pearl St
E06-047
- "\::024 I.----Fi___..__ __ Culvert "'~~
30 gueroa Box---.
j
·
Q.
2 A STMH
o SMH
-- STMN
-- SMN
- PG_Interceptor
E06-028
• E06-018 ~ i·&8~cHf,{sri, HERE,
anagement, EPA,
AR, N Robinson,
San Carlos Esri Community Maps Contributors, Cal»iia State Pat>i{,i~ -openStreetMap, Cemetery Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologie" , METI/N F00;-<00,&3ureau of Land NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Sourc~ Esri, Ai u , USGS, NGA, NASA, C 26ft NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geo~~W{A1lsen, ~ waterstaat, G , Geoland, FEMA, ln~ii!l~ . Cemetery E06-017__.e" ser community E06-022 FIGUREA-2 Storm and Sanitary Pipelines Schaaf ~ Wheeler I 0___2s~o__s_oo Feet Lake El Estero Diversion CONSULTING CML ENGINEERS J Figure 10/2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 119, Packet Page 273 acility Name
Monterey Interceptor (Ml) Flows
Salinas Interceptor (SI) Flows
Castroville Interceptor (Cl) Flows
Total RTP Influent Flows to Headworks
RTP Permitted Design Flows

MOSS LANDING PS
DESIGN= 0309 MGD
PWWF = 0389 MGD
ADWF = 0.085 MGD
Flow Rates (MGD)

ADWF PWWF

6.7 19.8
11 .8 15.0

0.7 2.0
192 36.8

29.6 75.6

CASTROVILLE PS
DESIGN = 2.7 MGD
PWWF = 2MGD
ADWF = 0.7 MGD
Cl
MRWPCA
RTP
Ml ~
\ Q SALINAS PS

MONTEREY PS

FORT ORD PS
DESIGN = 37.09 MGD
PWWF= 18MGD
ADWF = 5.5 MGD

SEASIDE PS
DESIGN = 29.06 MGD
PWWF= 14 MGD
ADWF = 4.6 MGD
PWWF = 8.0 MGD :,
DESIGN= 17.5 MGD ~
ADWF = 3.6 MGD Monterey A Q REESIDEPS"
FOUNTAIN AVE PS 8. DESIGN= 3.2 MGD
DESIGN = 7.2 MGD PWWF = UNK
PWWF = 3.5 MGD r:;;J ADWF = UNK
ADWF = l .OMGD B.

Pacific Grove

CORAL ST PS
DESIGN = 3.8 MGD
PWWF = 1.6 MGD
ADWF = 0.6 MGD
8_ DESIGN = 35 MGD
PWWF= 15MGD
MARINA PS ADWF = 11 .8 MGD
DESIGN = 5.5 MGD
PWWF = 1.8 MGD
ADWF = 1.2 MGD
LEGEND
MGD = Million Gallons Per Day
PS = Pump Station (jj_
RTP = Regional Treatment Plant
UNK = Unknown
NTS
Lake El Estero Diversion Urban Runoff Yield Study
Figure A-3: M1W (formerly MRWPCA) Interceptor System Schematic Source: Brezack and Associates Planners, September 2013 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 120, Packet Page 274 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette i}FEMA Legend
121 °53'27"W 36°36'6"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zona A, V. A99
With BFE or DepthZoneAr. AO. AH, VE. AR SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone x
Future Conditions 1% Annual
lliil._.,... Chance Flood Hazard zonex
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone x OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone o
NOSCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
c::::::::J Effective LOMRs
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o
GENERAL Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES I 1 1 I I I I Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
WaterSurface Elevation
a - - - Coastal Transect
- 111- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
= Limit of Study
--- Jurisdiction Boundary
--- --- Coastal Transect Baseline
OTHER Profile Baseline
FEATURES Hydrographic Feature
L Digital Data Available N
No Digital Data Available
MAP PANELS Unmapped
The pin displayed on the map Is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
9 +
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if It is not void as described below.

The base map shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The f lood hazard information Is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 10/ 7/ 2022 at 2:19 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to thisdate and time. The NFHL and effective Information may change or
become superseded by new data over t ime.

This map Image Is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear. basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community Identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for Feet unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 121, Packet Page 275 Fisherman's
Shoreline Park
)> \nlantry St < Del Monte "' /',rtillel'i st Monterey Bay Beach :::
...
...
.c"'
~
Del Monte Twin 51" Outfall
0 Monterey State
Beach
• 11 ft b De/ Monte Ave
k ~ E Fra ~ nkfin St
~ Naval
El Estero Park
El Encinal
Cemetery
Monterey Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
74- V, V'
o)
...
"' .,
Ol .,
,... Don Dahvee Creek "' ...
0 Fre,._
0 ::, "'Ont St
:E
C
~ Lake El Estero Q~ (Formerly Majors Creek) .0
11,\0rse 0,
0 .,.homas Dr ~ Via Paraiso I 0th St l',Aartin St Ct:
b \Illar"-' 2 Park v'
VI
.,
"' ~ 0 09. St :E o,.. (.o\tOl'I .., ., V) Q. V, X>a .v 0 ~ ia Ga'lu V) 'l> C"' ($-' ... Monterey Gro"e St .t q_'l> Peninsula "' ~'l> "' College -0 ~ 0
~ Don Dahvee E
·2 Park Q. e ~ ~~0 j o oCir D,- 0
!
£ :J so Esri Community Maps Contributors, California StatAtaMP.•~i~tfRE, Garmin, SafeGraph, ~ / ,~eoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Managem~9i~;H>A, NPS, US Census Bureau, -~ .._;' Iris Canyon ° USDA, Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, ~ ~~ ! ,,'-aQ~ j Del Monce Geodatastyrelsen, Rijiwaterstaat, GSA, ::oland, FEMA, lntermap and the GIS user community (.)'------'-'-----------------------------------------=-----0.....----.......----------------------' MRSWMP/MBNMS/ Monterey Urban Watch Water Sampling Sites Schaaf ~ Wheeler I 0____6s_o___1_,3oo Feet Figure A-5 CONSULTING CML ENGINEERS J Figure 10/2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 122, Packet Page 276 + + +
---------+
+ + + t +
------------------1--- --------------------- --+-------------11-------------------- + t +
+ + +
•
• • •
• + • •• t + • • • • • • • • I . • • • •
• 'lte • • , • • • .. . ,.
• • • • .., . - • • • • . , •
•
Figure A-6: Lake El Estero Gage Data
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
9/1/2022 0:00 10/11/2022 0:00 11/20/2022 0:00 12/30/2022 0:00 2/8/2023 0:00 3/20/2023 0:00 4/29/2023 0:00 6/8/2023 0:00 7/18/2023 0:00 8/27/2023 0:00 10/6/2023 0:00 11/15/2023 0:00 12/25/2023 0:00 2/3/2024 0:00 Lake Level (ft) Precipitation (in)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 123, Packet Page 277

t t t t t t t
t t + t t
t + t t t t
+ t t
I l1111111IIIIHlllllllll1l111hl hl11111 •• 1i •. 1 .•• il ..... hm•••l• .. •h•11 .• lu1111• ................. 111 ..... .1.1 ........... .1...... . ....... ·•····•····· ............ 1i.1 ...... 11.11hl.111 .. 1l .. 1 .. lllil.11ll.1111•1i1i1111•.11 11 .. 1i1.1•Hll .. 1•l1i111lmll l1li11i.l 111 II ll1ll11liil11ll I l1ll11I 1111 . . . . . • . .. . • ···r- ........ . ·11·· T ........... ...,.T·• . .. •n• .......... 1 ... , ........... .,. •• ••••• •""•····••••·•l••.-.•·1 ..1-r•• .. ri••T·••1111r .. 111 ............................. 111 .. 1 .. • ••111 • • •· .... • • •• • .... I . t + t t
+ + + ..
t t t + t t
+ + + + +
Figure A-7: Summary of Daily Level Changes
Change in Lake Level

2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
-0.50 -1.00 -1.50 -2.00 -2.50
9/14/2022 10/14/2022 11/14/2022 12/14/2022 1/14/2023 2/14/2023 3/14/2023 4/14/2023 5/14/2023 6/14/2023 7/14/2023 8/14/2023 9/14/2023 10/14/2023 11/14/2023 12/14/2023 1/14/2024 2/14/2024 Date
Inflows (ft) Outflows (ft)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 124, Packet Page 278 + + + +
+ + + ..
+ .. .. ..
+ t + t
+ .. + ..
+ t + • t
•
• •
•
0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0

0.71 0.94

0.25 0 0
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10/31/2022 11/1/2022 11/2/2022 11/3/2022 11/4/2022 11/5/2022 11/6/2022 11/7/2022 11/8/2022 11/9/2022 11/10/2022 11/11/2022 Figure A-8: Gage Data, 10/31/22 - 11/11/22
Lake Level (ft) Precipitation (in)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 125, Packet Page 279

+- +- +-

I- I- I-
+ +

I- I- I I-
+- I - + - - +-
+
+- +- +-

I- I- I-
+- + +- + +-

I- I- I-
+- + +- I + +-
■ I
:\,"\, :\,"\, :\,"\, :\,"\, :\,"\, :\,"\, :\,"\, :\,"\, :\,"\, :\,"\, :\,"\, :\,"\, ~ ~,;:, ~ ~,;:, 'fv,;:, ~ ~,;:, ~ ~ ~,;:, ~ ~,;:, ~..,, ... ~..,, ... ~"v ... ~"' ... ~~ ... ~"' ..,_,;:, ... ~'o ..,,$- ... ~'t, ... ~°> ..,,..,, ~-$> ..,,..,, ❖ ■ ■ ■
Figure A-9: Level Changes 10/31/22 - 11/11/22
1 5
Level Change (ft)
Precipitation (in)

0.74 0.36

0.29 0

0.09 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

0.04 0.00

0.04 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
-0.04
-0.67 0.94

0.71 0

0.11 0 0 0 0 0
-0.97 0.25
0 0

0.6 4
-0.2
2 -0.4

1.5 -0.6

0.5 -1
-1.2 0
Inflow (ft) Outflow (ft) Precip (in)

3.5 3

2.5 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 126, Packet Page 280 Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Appendix B: Tables
Table B-1: 2020 California 303(d) Listing
Table B-2: Recorded Precipitation in Monterey, CA
Table B-3: El Estero Watershed Areas and Curve Numbers
Table B-4: Estimated Runoff to Lake El Estero (Modeled) Table B-5: Summary of Measured Inflows and Outflows
Table B-6: Estimated Runoff to Lake El Estero (Updated) Table B-7: Estimated Transferable Runoff at Lake El Estero Table B-8: Estimated Transferable Runoff at Lake El Estero with new connection to MPS Table B-9: Figueroa Watershed Areas and Curve Numbers
Table B-9: Combined El Estero and Figueroa Watershed Areas and Curve Numbers Table B-10: Estimated Runoff from the Figueroa Drainage Basin Table B-11: NOT USED
Table B-12: Water Quality, El Estero Basin and Monterey Bay Table B-13: Water Quality Objectives
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 127, Packet Page 281

Table B-1: 2020 California 303(d) Listing
Water Body Water Body ID Listed for:

ArsenicCopperEnterococcusEscherichia coli (E. coli) LeadOxygen, Dissolved PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Total ColiformToxicityZinc Don Dahvee Creek (Monterey County) CAR3095004220090226140639 River & Stream X X X X Hartnell Gulch West Fork (Monterey County) CAR3095004020191211029859 River & Stream X Monterey Harbor CAB3091201419980827160747 Bay & Harbor X X X X X X Pacific Ocean at Monterey State Beach (Del Monte Beach) CAC3091201420100427221933 Coastal & Bay Shoreline X X Note: Don Dahvee Creek was previously listed as Majors Creek 2020-22_apx-a-303d-list.xlsx/Table_B1 9/30/2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 128, Packet Page 282

Lake El Estero Diversion
Table B-2: Recorded Precipitation in Monterey, CA (inches) Water Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1952 0.9 2.8 6.9 10.0 3.0 4.4 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 29.7 1953 0.2 2.2 5.9 2.1 0.0 1.2 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 14.1 1954 0.4 2.2 0.6 4.3 2.3 4.9 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 16.4 1955 0.0 1.4 3.1 5.8 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 1956 0.1 2.0 9.8 5.8 2.3 0.2 1.7 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 22.8 1957 1.0 0.0 0.8 4.7 3.5 1.9 1.5 2.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 16.2 1958 1.6 0.9 3.7 3.7 5.7 7.2 4.7 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 28.9 1959 0.0 0.5 0.5 4.9 5.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 15.6 1960 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.3 4.5 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.6 1961 0.1 2.1 0.9 1.9 1.2 2.6 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 10.9 1962 0.0 1.7 1.2 2.6 5.2 2.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 14.4 1963 1.3 0.4 2.2 3.1 2.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 1964 1.5 3.8 0.5 3.5 0.4 2.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 13.7 1965 0.8 3.3 6.5 2.6 1.1 2.4 2.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 19.4 1966 0.2 6.5 5.6 2.3 1.9 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 18.1 1967 0.1 4.7 4.2 5.3 0.5 5.5 7.1 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 29.6 1968 0.4 1.6 2.3 3.1 1.4 3.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 13.3 1969 0.3 3.1 3.3 9.5 7.3 1.3 2.7 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 28.2 1970 0.5 0.7 3.1 5.9 2.0 3.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 16.0 1971 0.6 6.2 5.0 1.1 0.6 2.0 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 18.0 1972 0.1 2.0 4.8 1.2 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 10.5 1973 2.5 6.0 2.1 6.1 5.9 4.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 27.6 1974 2.2 3.9 4.7 3.7 0.9 4.5 3.4 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 24.0 1975 1.5 0.6 2.5 1.3 3.6 4.1 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 16.2 1976 1.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 3.0 1.5 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.4 10.7 1977 0.6 0.7 2.1 1.7 0.8 1.8 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 9.8 1978 0.1 0.5 5.9 6.8 4.8 5.2 5.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 29.2 1979 0.0 2.1 1.6 4.8 4.5 4.4 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 18.8 1980 1.8 2.9 3.2 4.8 4.8 2.4 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 23.1 1981 0.1 0.1 1.7 6.6 2.1 4.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 16.0 1982 2.1 5.7 1.7 4.7 2.4 8.0 3.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.5 29.9 1983 2.3 6.2 3.6 6.9 5.6 9.6 4.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 40.3 1984 0.5 5.3 3.7 0.1 2.4 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 1985 2.1 4.8 2.0 1.1 1.4 3.9 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 16.9 1986 1.6 4.4 1.5 2.1 4.5 5.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.9 21.2 1987 0.1 0.3 1.7 3.4 3.0 2.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 12.1 1988 1.1 1.8 3.2 2.2 0.7 0.1 1.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 1989 0.2 2.7 3.4 1.6 2.2 2.9 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 15.3 1990 1.7 1.4 0.2 3.5 2.9 1.6 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 14.1 1991 0.1 0.5 1.7 0.7 2.3 7.5 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 13.9 1992 1.3 0.1 3.5 2.2 6.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 17.8 1993 0.7 0.2 6.3 9.7 7.6 3.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.1 1994 0.2 1.8 2.2 3.0 4.0 0.5 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 14.0 1995 0.3 2.8 2.4 10.6 0.7 7.3 2.2 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 1996 0.0 0.2 2.3 5.0 8.1 2.9 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 21.0 1997 1.1 2.6 8.0 8.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 21.7 1998 0.6 7.5 3.6 10.4 14.3 4.2 3.4 2.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 47.4 1999 0.6 2.5 1.2 2.7 3.1 3.4 2.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 16.3 2000 0.1 1.0 0.2 5.3 5.8 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 16.2 2001 3.9 0.0 0.2 3.6 3.7 1.7 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 15.0 2002 0.2 2.3 4.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 2003 0.0 1.9 6.2 1.0 1.9 1.0 2.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 15.0 2004 0.4 1.7 5.3 1.3 4.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 13.5 2005 3.3 1.0 4.9 4.4 4.2 4.2 1.6 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 2006 0.1 1.1 3.6 3.2 0.9 7.1 2.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 2007 0.1 1.3 2.3 1.1 3.1 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 10.2 2008 1.1 0.5 1.1 6.3 2.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 2009 0.2 1.3 2.7 2.2 5.0 2.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 14.5 2010 2.4 0.3 2.2 5.9 2.9 3.2 3.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 20.6 2011 0.9 2.2 4.0 2.0 4.5 4.8 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 20.4 2012 1.9 1.4 0.2 1.3 0.7 3.5 2.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 2013 0.6 3.5 3.9 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.2 2014 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 3.7 2.3 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 8.8 2015 1.6 1.3 8.9 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 14.8 2016 0.1 3.9 3.6 6.5 1.4 5.4 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 2017 2.8 1.5 1.6 8.3 6.6 2.5 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 2018 0.2 1.8 0.0 4.6 0.4 5.1 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 2019 0.2 2.9 0.0 3.5 7.9 3.3 0.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 20.7 2020 0.0 2.3 6.4 1.2 0.0 6.1 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 2021 0.0 0.5 0.8 4.4 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 2022 2.3 0.5 6.2 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 11.8 2023 0.0 2.0 7.2 4.9 3.3 5.6 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 23.9 2024 0.1 0.5 3.8 3.6 3.1 11.1
Average
Minimum
Maximum

0.8 0.0

3.9 2.1

0.0 7.5

3.1 0.0

9.8 3.8

0.0 10.6

3.1 0.0

14.3 3.0

0.0 9.6

1.4 0.0

7.1 0.5

0.0 2.7

0.2 0.0

1.6 0.1

0.0 0.7

0.1 0.0

1.0 0.2

0.0 3.1

18.4 7.6

47.4 Statistics for period 1991-2020 (30-Year Climate)
Average 0.8 1.7 3.1 3.9 3.6 3.1 1.3
Minimum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Maximum 3.9 7.5 8.9 10.6 14.3 7.5 3.4
Data from 1951-10-01 to 1998-09-30 is from gage USC00045795 Monterey, CA Data from 1998-10-01 to 2013-09-30 is from gage USC00045802 Monterey WFO Data from 2013-10-01 to 2024-2-14 is from gage USW00023259 Monterey Peninsula Airport, CA

0.5 0.0

2.7 0.2

0.0 1.4

0.0 0.0

0.3 0.0

0.0 0.3

0.1 0.0

0.4 18.4

8.8 47.4
El_Estero_Runoff_rev2024-10-07.xlsx/Precip-in Summary 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 129, Packet Page 283

Table B-3: El Estero Watershed Areas and Curve Numbers
Determination of available surface water for non-potable water supply Land Use Soil Curve Area Percent Impervious Pervious Curve Area Curve Curve Group Number Impervious Area Area Number Number Number
(AMC II) (acres) (acres) (acres) (AMC II) (acres) (AMC I) (AMC III) Pervious Area
1 LD A 34 22 15% 3.3 18.7 34 21.9 18 54
2 UHD A 34 31 90% 28.1 3.1 43 274.6 25 63
3 DV B 43 275 0% 0.0 274.6 48 179.0 29 68
4 MD B 48 186 30% 55.9 130.5 60 1465.6 40 78
5 HD B 48 68 50% 34.0 34.0 65 19.8 45 82
6 LD B 48 10 15% 1.5 8.6 66 18.4 46 82
7 UHD B 48 60 90% 53.7 6.0 70 34.8 51 85
8 DV C 60 1466 0% 0.0 1465.6 2014
9 HD C 65 31 50% 15.6 15.6 Impervious Area
10 LD C 65 2 15% 0.3 1.6 98 404 94 99
11 UHD C 65 27 90% 24.0 2.7
12 DV D 66 18 0% 0.0 18.4
13 HD D 70 31 50% 15.6 15.6
14 LD D 70 3 15% 0.4 2.3
15 UHD D 70 169 90% 152.1 16.9
16 Lake n\a 100 19 100% 19.3 0.0
2418 404 2014
Scrub runoff curve numbers used for dense vegetation
Irrigated pasture runoff curve numbers used for pervious areas of all other land use Curve numbers come from NRCS Pub TR-55
AMC values come from NRCS Pub NEH-4 (National Engineering Handbook, Part 630, Chapter 10) El_Estero_Runoff_rev2022.xlsx/Land Use & Soil 9/30/2022 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 130, Packet Page 284

1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Lake El Estero Diversion
Table B-4: Estimated Runoff into Lake El Estero (acre-feet) Water Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1952 8 47 134 248 21 56 10 - - - - - 525
1953 - 30 86 15 - 10 14 - - - - - 155
1954 1 32 4 62 29 69 7 3 0 - - - 208
1955 - 14 41 92 17 - 7 3 - - - - 174
1956 - 26 215 92 31 - 19 3 - - - 1 387
1957 3 - 6 58 36 7 12 31 - - - 0 153
1958 14 4 55 66 80 106 142 5 0 - - 1 473
1959 - 1 2 111 110 0 1 - - - - 72 298
- - 1 54 67 1 4 0 - - - - 126
1961 - 21 5 14 8 26 14 1 - - - - 88
1962 - 10 9 40 71 36 0 - 0 - 1 - 168
1963 21 1 33 57 49 68 - - - - - - 228
1964 18 38 2 55 2 15 - 1 - - 1 - 131
1965 4 40 154 24 7 25 18 - - - - - 272
1966 0 116 110 37 13 1 0 - - 1 - 1 278
1967 - 52 127 112 1 118 114 1 16 - - - 541
1968 2 11 17 31 7 34 11 - - - 0 - 112
1969 0 34 20 269 128 10 34 - 0 - - - 496
3 7 39 118 19 88 0 - 0 - - - 274
1971 1 199 67 4 1 23 6 1 - - - 3 305
1972 - 21 63 9 5 - 1 - 0 - - - 98
1973 30 136 8 75 89 43 - - - - - 0 381
1974 30 33 82 61 2 65 91 - 1 0 - - 366
1975 16 2 24 9 31 36 6 - - - 3 - 127
1976 20 0 0 - 30 18 19 - 0 - 4 1 93
1977 7 4 44 39 4 19 - 4 - - - 4 125
1978 - 2 104 171 115 65 72 - - - - 0 530
1979 - 26 13 58 39 53 1 0 - 2 - - 193
20 31 43 58 81 19 10 1 - 9 - - 272
1981 - - 19 153 12 36 8 - - - - - 228
1982 30 97 10 64 29 123 63 - 2 - - 15 432
1983 35 125 68 190 60 246 69 0 - - - 19 814
1984 1 81 31 - 18 5 1 1 - - - - 137
1985 30 57 15 4 22 35 5 0 1 - - 0 168
1986 27 84 10 12 82 117 0 1 - - - 7 340
1987 - 0 9 30 46 25 3 - - - - - 114
1988 11 18 21 19 2 0 13 0 - - - - 83
1989 - 29 40 13 31 21 5 0 - - - 7 145
25 20 0 50 36 6 12 17 - - - - 166
1991 0 5 11 4 23 128 0 - - - - - 172
1992 16 - 59 35 167 62 - - - - - - 339
1993 3 0 115 273 172 37 6 1 3 - - - 611
1994 - 17 42 54 63 0 6 5 - - - - 186
1995 1 13 17 220 2 118 13 2 17 - - - 403
1996 - 0 16 67 253 39 5 16 - - - - 396
1997 5 49 165 202 - - 1 - - - 0 - 423
1998 2 146 56 260 653 44 52 19 - - - - 1,232
1999 7 23 4 20 37 16 24 - - - - 2 133
- 5 - 122 74 43 2 1 - - - 0 247
2001 53 - - 38 43 11 12 - - - - - 158
2002 0 22 57 13 5 5 0 4 - - - - 107
2003 - 30 116 6 16 7 5 1 - - - - 181
2004 2 9 84 29 35 2 - - - - - - 162
2005 52 4 112 80 55 52 6 2 0 - - - 363
2006 - 3 33 47 1 71 35 7 - - - - 197
2007 - 5 20 4 26 2 5 - - - - 1 63
2008 8 1 3 112 17 3 0 - - - - - 144
2009 0 6 22 28 57 22 0 0 - - - 0 135
59 0 14 117 16 44 32 1 - - - - 283
2011 2 16 33 27 88 99 - 2 4 - - - 271
2012 21 5 0 10 1 41 21 - 1 - - - 100
2013 1 48 58 2 5 3 - - - - - - 117
2014 3 2 1 - 54 38 5 - - - - 1 104
2015 27 10 311 - 4 0 5 0 - - - - 357
2016 - 60 29 102 17 105 2 0 - - - - 315
2017 40 7 9 169 114 19 4 - - - - - 361
2018 0 14 - 87 1 54 27 - - - - - 183
2019 0 42 - 32 169 17 0 22 - - - - 281
- 34 249 11 - 110 44 1 - - - - 449
2021 - 0 2 89 1 6 - - - - - - 98
2022 35 2 119 - 0 5 1 - - - - 18 180
2023 - 27 134 73 42 63 - 1 0 - - - 339
2024 - 3 40 30 71 - - - - - - - 144
Average
Minimum
Maximum
9 -
59 28
-
199
50 -
311
68 -
273
51 -
653
40 -
246
15 -
142
2 -
31 1
-
17 0
-
9 0
-
4 2
-
72 266
63 1,232
Statistics for period 1991-2020 (30-Year Climate)
Average 10 19 54
Minimum - - -
Maximum 59 146 311
72 -
273
72 -
653
40 -
128
10 -
52 3
-
22 1
-
17 -
-
-
0 -
0 0
-
2 282
63 1,232
El_Estero_Runoff_rev2024-10-07.xlsx/Runoff Summary 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 131, Packet Page 285 Table B-5: Summary of Measured Inflows and Outflows Page 1 PRECIP INFLOW MODELED DIFF. OUTFLOW

DATE (IN) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) 9/14/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/15/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/16/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/17/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/18/2022 1.04 209.54 0.08 1.44 18.06 16.62 -0.06 -1.08 9/19/2022 0.02 4.03 1.37 24.66 0.00 -24.66 -0.36 -6.48
9/20/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/21/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/22/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/23/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/24/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
9/25/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/26/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/27/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/28/2022 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
9/29/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/30/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
10/1/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/2/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/3/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/4/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/5/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/6/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/7/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/8/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/9/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/10/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/11/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/12/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/13/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/14/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/15/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/16/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/17/2022 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
10/18/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
10/19/2022 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
10/20/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/21/2022 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 -0.03 -0.54
10/22/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/23/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/24/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
10/25/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/26/2022 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
10/27/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/28/2022 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
10/29/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/30/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/31/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.67 -12.06
11/1/2022 0.11 22.16 0.09 1.62 0.00 -1.62 0.00 0.00
11/2/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/3/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/4/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
11/5/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 -0.04 -0.72
11/6/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D05H2_Lake_El_Estero_working_3-5-24.xlsx\Rpt_Table 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 132, Packet Page 286 Table B-5: Summary of Measured Inflows and Outflows Page 2 PRECIP INFLOW MODELED DIFF. OUTFLOW

DATE (IN) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) 11/7/2022 0.71 143.05 0.29 5.22 9.35 4.13 0.00 0.00
11/8/2022 0.94 189.39 0.74 13.32 15.31 1.99 -0.97 -17.46 11/9/2022 0.25 50.37 0.36 6.48 2.26 -4.22 0.00 0.00
11/10/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/11/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/12/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
11/13/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/14/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/15/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/16/2022 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
11/17/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/18/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/19/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/20/2022 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
11/21/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/22/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.74 -13.32
11/23/2022 0 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00
11/24/2022 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
11/25/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
11/26/2022 0 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00
11/27/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
11/28/2022 0 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00
11/29/2022 0 0.00 0.09 1.62 0.00 -1.62 -0.05 -0.90
11/30/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 -0.04 -0.72
12/1/2022 0.36 72.53 0.26 4.68 2.09 -2.59 0.00 0.00
12/2/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.85 -15.30
12/3/2022 1.08 217.60 1.18 21.24 19.18 -2.06 0.00 0.00
12/4/2022 0 0.00 0.39 7.02 0.00 -7.02 -0.96 -17.28
12/5/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.66 -11.88
12/6/2022 0.13 26.19 0.24 4.32 0.01 -4.31 -0.03 -0.54
12/7/2022 0 0.00 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 -0.03 -0.54
12/8/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
12/9/2022 0.08 16.12 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.70 -12.60
12/10/2022 1.38 278.05 0.67 12.06 27.91 15.85 0.00 0.00 12/11/2022 1.72 346.55 1.76 31.68 44.52 12.84 -1.43 -25.74 12/12/2022 0.04 8.06 0.84 15.12 0.11 -15.01 -0.53 -9.54 12/13/2022 0 0.00 0.13 2.34 0.00 -2.34 0.00 0.00
12/14/2022 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
12/15/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/16/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/17/2022 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/18/2022 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 -0.86 -15.48
12/19/2022 0 0.00 0.38 6.84 0.00 -6.84 -0.32 -5.76
12/20/2022 0 0.00 0.38 6.84 0.00 -6.84 -0.37 -6.66
12/21/2022 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
12/22/2022 0 0.00 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 -1.11 -19.98
12/23/2022 0 0.00 0.64 11.52 0.00 -11.52 -0.60 -10.80
12/24/2022 0 0.00 0.38 6.84 0.00 -6.84 -0.04 -0.72
12/25/2022 0 0.00 0.07 1.26 0.00 -1.26 -0.03 -0.54
12/26/2022 0.02 4.03 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/27/2022 1.11 223.65 0.82 14.76 20.03 5.27 -1.22 -21.96 12/28/2022 0 0.00 0.21 3.78 0.00 -3.78 0.00 0.00
12/29/2022 0.16 32.24 0.22 3.96 0.05 -3.91 0.00 0.00
12/30/2022 0.03 6.04 0.14 2.52 0.00 -2.52 -0.75 -13.50
D05H2_Lake_El_Estero_working_3-5-24.xlsx\Rpt_Table 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 133, Packet Page 287 Table B-5: Summary of Measured Inflows and Outflows Page 3 PRECIP INFLOW MODELED DIFF. OUTFLOW

DATE (IN) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) 12/31/2022 1.11 223.65 0.82 14.76 20.03 5.27 -0.63 -11.34 1/1/2023 0 0.00 0.68 12.24 0.00 -12.24 0.00 0.00
1/2/2023 0.01 2.01 0.28 5.04 0.00 -5.04 -1.63 -29.34
1/3/2023 0 0.00 0.2 3.60 0.00 -3.60 0.00 0.00
1/4/2023 0.45 90.67 0.6 10.80 3.64 -7.16 0.00 0.00
1/5/2023 0.47 94.70 0.95 17.10 6.18 -10.92 -0.70 -12.60 1/6/2023 0 0.00 0.24 4.32 0.00 -4.32 -1.17 -21.06
1/7/2023 0.43 86.64 0.65 11.70 3.27 -8.43 0.00 0.00
1/8/2023 0.13 26.19 0.63 11.34 0.00 -11.34 -1.49 -26.82 1/9/2023 1.26 253.87 1.85 33.30 26.48 -6.82 -0.87 -15.66 1/10/2023 0.39 78.58 1.34 24.12 9.78 -14.34 -1.87 -33.66 1/11/2023 0.12 24.18 0.95 17.10 1.67 -15.43 0.00 0.00
1/12/2023 0 0.00 0.45 8.10 0.00 -8.10 -1.60 -28.80
1/13/2023 0.1 20.15 0.62 11.16 0.68 -10.48 0.00 0.00
1/14/2023 0.69 139.02 0.91 16.38 17.57 1.19 -1.10 -19.80 1/15/2023 0.16 32.24 0.83 14.94 0.05 -14.89 -1.48 -26.64 1/16/2023 0.42 84.62 1.02 18.36 3.09 -15.27 -0.68 -12.24 1/17/2023 0 0.00 0.83 14.94 0.00 -14.94 0.00 0.00
1/18/2023 0 0.00 0.51 9.18 0.00 -9.18 0.00 0.00
1/19/2023 0.17 34.25 0.56 10.08 0.09 -9.99 -0.92 -16.56 1/20/2023 0 0.00 0.32 5.76 0.00 -5.76 0.00 0.00
1/21/2023 0 0.00 0.19 3.42 0.00 -3.42 0.00 0.00
1/22/2023 0 0.00 0.21 3.78 0.00 -3.78 -1.05 -18.90
1/23/2023 0 0.00 0.17 3.06 0.00 -3.06 -0.72 -12.96
1/24/2023 0 0.00 0.09 1.62 0.00 -1.62 0.00 0.00
1/25/2023 0 0.00 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 0.00 0.00
1/26/2023 0 0.00 0.12 2.16 0.00 -2.16 0.00 0.00
1/27/2023 0 0.00 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 -0.51 -9.18
1/28/2023 0 0.00 0.08 1.44 0.00 -1.44 0.00 0.00
1/29/2023 0.08 16.12 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1/30/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
1/31/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/1/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
2/2/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 -0.84 -15.12
2/3/2023 0.09 18.13 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00
2/4/2023 0.16 32.24 0.09 1.62 0.05 -1.57 0.00 0.00
2/5/2023 0.04 8.06 0.1 1.80 0.00 -1.80 0.00 0.00
2/6/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/7/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/8/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
2/9/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/10/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.54 -9.72
2/11/2023 0.36 72.53 0.25 4.50 2.09 -2.41 0.00 0.00
2/12/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/13/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.06 -1.08
2/14/2023 0 0.00 0.11 1.98 0.00 -1.98 -0.20 -3.60
2/15/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/16/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/17/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/18/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/19/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/20/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/21/2023 0.01 2.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.24 -22.32
2/22/2023 0.05 10.07 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
D05H2_Lake_El_Estero_working_3-5-24.xlsx\Rpt_Table 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 134, Packet Page 288 Table B-5: Summary of Measured Inflows and Outflows Page 4 PRECIP INFLOW MODELED DIFF. OUTFLOW

DATE (IN) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) 2/23/2023 0.15 30.22 0.06 1.08 0.03 -1.05 0.00 0.00
2/24/2023 0.95 191.41 0.94 16.92 15.58 -1.34 -1.03 -18.54 2/25/2023 0 0.00 0.16 2.88 0.00 -2.88 0.00 0.00
2/26/2023 0.16 32.24 0.03 0.54 0.05 -0.49 0.00 0.00
2/27/2023 0.52 104.77 0.73 13.14 5.03 -8.11 -1.17 -21.06 2/28/2023 0.77 155.14 0.99 17.82 19.41 1.59 -0.39 -7.02 3/1/2023 0 0.00 1.3 23.40 0.00 -23.40 -1.70 -30.60
3/2/2023 0 0.00 0.49 8.82 0.00 -8.82 0.00 0.00
3/3/2023 0 0.00 0.31 5.58 0.00 -5.58 -0.95 -17.10
3/4/2023 0.32 64.47 0.7 12.60 1.50 -11.10 0.00 0.00
3/5/2023 0.33 66.49 0.76 13.68 1.64 -12.04 0.00 0.00
3/6/2023 0 0.00 0.25 4.50 0.00 -4.50 -1.31 -23.58
3/7/2023 0.07 14.10 0.27 4.86 0.00 -4.86 0.00 0.00
3/8/2023 0.34 68.50 0.38 6.84 1.78 -5.06 -1.28 -23.04
3/9/2023 0.23 46.34 0.54 9.72 0.48 -9.24 0.00 0.00
3/10/2023 1.29 259.91 1.75 31.50 25.25 -6.25 -1.97 -35.46 3/11/2023 0.02 4.03 0.84 15.12 0.00 -15.12 -0.04 -0.72
3/12/2023 0 0.00 0.74 13.32 0.00 -13.32 -1.45 -26.10
3/13/2023 0 0.00 0.59 10.62 0.00 -10.62 -0.64 -11.52
3/14/2023 0.59 118.88 0.71 12.78 8.71 -4.07 -0.54 -9.72 3/15/2023 0 0.00 0.74 13.32 0.00 -13.32 -0.53 -9.54
3/16/2023 0 0.00 0.49 8.82 0.00 -8.82 0.00 0.00
3/17/2023 0 0.00 0.33 5.94 0.00 -5.94 -1.50 -27.00
3/18/2023 0 0.00 0.38 6.84 0.00 -6.84 0.00 0.00
3/19/2023 0.43 86.64 0.81 14.58 3.27 -11.31 0.00 0.00
3/20/2023 0.02 4.03 0.34 6.12 0.00 -6.12 -0.91 -16.38
3/21/2023 0.49 98.73 0.5 9.00 4.41 -4.59 -0.43 -7.74
3/22/2023 0.81 163.20 1 18.00 11.86 -6.14 -0.85 -15.30
3/23/2023 0 0.00 0.71 12.78 0.00 -12.78 -0.94 -16.92
3/24/2023 0 0.00 0.64 11.52 0.00 -11.52 0.00 0.00
3/25/2023 0 0.00 0.38 6.84 0.00 -6.84 -1.22 -21.96
3/26/2023 0 0.00 0.4 7.20 0.00 -7.20 0.00 0.00
3/27/2023 0 0.00 0.29 5.22 0.00 -5.22 -0.80 -14.40
3/28/2023 0.44 88.65 0.8 14.40 3.45 -10.95 0.00 0.00
3/29/2023 0.23 46.34 0.76 13.68 0.48 -13.20 -1.17 -21.06 3/30/2023 0 0.00 0.47 8.46 0.00 -8.46 0.00 0.00
3/31/2023 0 0.00 0.26 4.68 0.00 -4.68 -0.92 -16.56
4/1/2023 0 0.00 0.28 5.04 0.00 -5.04 0.00 0.00
4/2/2023 0.04 8.06 0.26 4.68 0.00 -4.68 0.00 0.00
4/3/2023 0 0.00 0.18 3.24 0.00 -3.24 -0.97 -17.46
4/4/2023 0 0.00 0.13 2.34 0.00 -2.34 0.00 0.00
4/5/2023 0 0.00 0.12 2.16 0.00 -2.16 0.00 0.00
4/6/2023 0 0.00 0.07 1.26 0.00 -1.26 0.00 0.00
4/7/2023 0.03 6.04 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 -0.50 -9.00
4/8/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/9/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/10/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
4/11/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/12/2023 0 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00
4/13/2023 0 0.00 0.09 1.62 0.00 -1.62 -0.60 -10.80
4/14/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/15/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/16/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
4/17/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D05H2_Lake_El_Estero_working_3-5-24.xlsx\Rpt_Table 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 135, Packet Page 289 Table B-5: Summary of Measured Inflows and Outflows Page 5 PRECIP INFLOW MODELED DIFF. OUTFLOW

DATE (IN) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) 4/18/2023 0.03 6.04 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
4/19/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/20/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.95 -17.10
4/21/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/22/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/23/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
4/24/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/25/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/26/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/27/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/28/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/29/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4/30/2023 0 0.00 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 -0.04 -0.72
5/1/2023 0.21 42.31 0 0.00 0.32 0.32 -0.73 -13.14
5/2/2023 0.09 18.13 0.14 2.52 0.00 -2.52 0.00 0.00
5/3/2023 0.23 46.34 0.19 3.42 0.48 -2.94 0.00 0.00
5/4/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/5/2023 0.03 6.04 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 -0.38 -6.84
5/6/2023 0 0.00 0.12 2.16 0.00 -2.16 0.00 0.00
5/7/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/8/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/9/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/10/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/11/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/12/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/13/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/14/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/15/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.50 -9.00
5/16/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/17/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/18/2023 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 -0.03 -0.54
5/19/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/20/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/21/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/22/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/23/2023 0 0.00 0.07 1.26 0.00 -1.26 -0.07 -1.26
5/24/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/25/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/26/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/27/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/28/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
5/29/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/30/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/31/2023 0.01 2.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/1/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/2/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/3/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/4/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/5/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -10.26
6/6/2023 0.15 30.22 0.08 1.44 0.03 -1.41 0.00 0.00
6/7/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/8/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/9/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/10/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D05H2_Lake_El_Estero_working_3-5-24.xlsx\Rpt_Table 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 136, Packet Page 290 Table B-5: Summary of Measured Inflows and Outflows Page 6 PRECIP INFLOW MODELED DIFF. OUTFLOW

DATE (IN) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) 6/11/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
6/12/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
6/13/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 -0.03 -0.54
6/14/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/15/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/16/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/17/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/18/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/19/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/20/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/21/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
6/22/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
6/23/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/24/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/25/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/26/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/27/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/28/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/29/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/30/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/1/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/2/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/3/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.30 -5.40
7/4/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/5/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/6/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/7/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/8/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/9/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/10/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/11/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.14 -2.52
7/12/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/13/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/14/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
7/15/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/16/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/17/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/18/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/19/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/20/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/21/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/22/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/23/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.03 -0.54
7/24/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/25/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/26/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/27/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/28/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/29/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/30/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7/31/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/1/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/2/2023 0.01 2.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/3/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D05H2_Lake_El_Estero_working_3-5-24.xlsx\Rpt_Table 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 137, Packet Page 291 Table B-5: Summary of Measured Inflows and Outflows Page 7 PRECIP INFLOW MODELED DIFF. OUTFLOW

DATE (IN) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) 8/4/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/5/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/6/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/7/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/8/2023 0 0.00 0.08 1.44 0.00 -1.44 -0.06 -1.08
8/9/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/10/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/11/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/12/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/13/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/14/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/15/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/16/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/17/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/18/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.27 -4.86
8/19/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/20/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/21/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/22/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/23/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/24/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/25/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/26/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/27/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/28/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/29/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/30/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8/31/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/1/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/2/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/3/2023 0.01 2.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/4/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/5/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/6/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/7/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/8/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/9/2023 0.01 2.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/10/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/11/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/12/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/13/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/14/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/15/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/16/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/17/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/18/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/19/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/20/2023 0 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 -0.03 -0.54
9/21/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/22/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/23/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
9/24/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/25/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.23 -4.14
9/26/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D05H2_Lake_El_Estero_working_3-5-24.xlsx\Rpt_Table 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 138, Packet Page 292 Table B-5: Summary of Measured Inflows and Outflows Page 8 PRECIP INFLOW MODELED DIFF. OUTFLOW

DATE (IN) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) 9/27/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/28/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/29/2023 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 -0.03 -0.54
9/30/2023 0.04 8.06 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/1/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/2/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/3/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/4/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/5/2023 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
10/6/2023 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
10/7/2023 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
10/8/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/9/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/10/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/11/2023 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
10/12/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/13/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/14/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/15/2023 0 0.00 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 0.00 0.00
10/16/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/17/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/18/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
10/19/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/20/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/21/2023 0 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 -0.03 -0.54
10/22/2023 0.04 8.06 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 0.00 0.00
10/23/2023 0.05 10.07 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
10/24/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/25/2023 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
10/26/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/27/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
10/28/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
10/29/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
10/30/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
10/31/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/1/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/2/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
11/3/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
11/4/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/5/2023 0.03 6.04 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/6/2023 0.02 4.03 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.60 -10.80
11/7/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/8/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 -0.03 -0.54
11/9/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.03 -0.54
11/10/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
11/11/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
11/12/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.03 -0.54
11/13/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.04 -0.72
11/14/2023 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 -0.03 -0.54
11/15/2023 0.01 2.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/16/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/17/2023 0.01 2.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/18/2023 0.43 86.64 0.31 5.58 3.27 -2.31 0.00 0.00
11/19/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
D05H2_Lake_El_Estero_working_3-5-24.xlsx\Rpt_Table 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 139, Packet Page 293 Table B-5: Summary of Measured Inflows and Outflows Page 9 PRECIP INFLOW MODELED DIFF. OUTFLOW

DATE (IN) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) 11/20/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/21/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/22/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/23/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/24/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/25/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/26/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/27/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/28/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 -0.62 -11.16
11/29/2023 0.01 2.01 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 -0.03 -0.54
11/30/2023 0 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 -0.03 -0.54
12/1/2023 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
12/2/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 -0.03 -0.54
12/3/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/4/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
12/5/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
12/6/2023 0.04 8.06 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/7/2023 0.16 32.24 0.04 0.72 0.05 -0.67 0.00 0.00
12/8/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
12/9/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/10/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
12/11/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
12/12/2023 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
12/13/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
12/14/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/15/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/16/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
12/17/2023 0.18 36.27 0.11 1.98 0.13 -1.85 0.00 0.00
12/18/2023 0.37 74.55 0.22 3.96 2.24 -1.72 -0.92 -16.56 12/19/2023 0.35 70.52 0.42 7.56 1.93 -5.63 0.00 0.00
12/20/2023 0.79 159.17 0.13 2.34 11.35 9.01 -0.56 -10.08 12/21/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/22/2023 0 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00
12/23/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
12/24/2023 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
12/25/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/26/2023 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12/27/2023 0.55 110.82 0 0.00 5.66 5.66 -0.71 -12.78
12/28/2023 0 0.00 0.19 3.42 0.00 -3.42 0.00 0.00
12/29/2023 0.91 183.35 0.64 11.52 14.50 2.98 0.00 0.00
12/30/2023 0.44 88.65 0.93 16.74 4.07 -12.67 -1.31 -23.58 12/31/2023 0.02 4.03 0.13 2.34 0.00 -2.34 0.00 0.00
1/1/2024 0 0.00 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 0.00 0.00
1/2/2024 0.41 82.61 0.16 2.88 2.91 0.03 -0.58 -10.44
1/3/2024 0.1 20.15 0.48 8.64 0.49 -8.15 -0.44 -7.92
1/4/2024 0 0.00 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 0.00 0.00
1/5/2024 0 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00
1/6/2024 0.36 72.53 0.35 6.30 2.09 -4.21 0.00 0.00
1/7/2024 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
1/8/2024 0 0.00 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 -0.98 -17.64
1/9/2024 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1/10/2024 0.18 36.27 0.12 2.16 0.13 -2.03 0.00 0.00
1/11/2024 0 0.00 0.09 1.62 0.00 -1.62 0.00 0.00
1/12/2024 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D05H2_Lake_El_Estero_working_3-5-24.xlsx\Rpt_Table 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 140, Packet Page 294 Table B-5: Summary of Measured Inflows and Outflows Page 10 PRECIP INFLOW MODELED DIFF. OUTFLOW

DATE (IN) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (FT) (AC-FT) 1/13/2024 0.01 2.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1/14/2024 0.03 6.04 0.11 1.98 0.00 -1.98 0.00 0.00
1/15/2024 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1/16/2024 0.18 36.27 0 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00
1/17/2024 0.02 4.03 0.25 4.50 0.00 -4.50 -1.27 -22.86
1/18/2024 0 0.00 0.04 0.72 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00
1/19/2024 0.03 6.04 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1/20/2024 0.23 46.34 0.14 2.52 0.48 -2.04 0.00 0.00
1/21/2024 0.18 36.27 0.18 3.24 0.13 -3.11 0.00 0.00
1/22/2024 0.28 56.42 0.57 10.26 0.99 -9.27 -0.85 -15.30 1/23/2024 0.02 4.03 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00
1/24/2024 0.44 88.65 0.48 8.64 3.45 -5.19 0.00 0.00
1/25/2024 0.02 4.03 0.1 1.80 0.00 -1.80 -0.82 -14.76
1/26/2024 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1/27/2024 0 0.00 0.06 1.08 0.00 -1.08 -0.03 -0.54
1/28/2024 0 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.00 -0.90 -0.04 -0.72
1/29/2024 0 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
1/30/2024 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1/31/2024 1.09 219.62 0.1 1.80 19.47 17.67 -0.87 -15.66 2/1/2024 0.32 64.47 1.76 31.68 1.50 -30.18 -1.68 -30.24 2/2/2024 0.38 76.56 0.78 14.04 2.48 -11.56 -0.84 -15.12 2/3/2024 0.4 80.59 0.38 6.84 7.94 1.10 0.00 0.00
2/4/2024 0.95 191.41 1.33 23.94 34.64 10.70 -1.37 -24.66 2/5/2024 0.4 80.59 1.89 34.02 10.10 -23.92 -2.04 -36.72 2/6/2024 0 0.00 0.6 10.80 0.00 -10.80 -0.85 -15.30
2/7/2024 0.52 104.77 0.88 15.84 14.04 -1.80 -0.16 -2.88 2/8/2024 0.04 8.06 0.54 9.72 0.11 -9.61 -1.07 -19.26
2/9/2024 0 0.00 0.46 8.28 0.00 -8.28 0.00 0.00
2/10/2024 0 0.00 0.31 5.58 0.00 -5.58 0.00 0.00
2/11/2024 0 0.00 0.17 3.06 0.00 -3.06 0.00 0.00
2/12/2024 0 0.00 0.15 2.70 0.00 -2.70 -1.13 -20.34
2/13/2024 0 0.00 0.1 1.80 0.00 -1.80 0.00 0.00
2/14/2024 0.08 16.12 0.03 0.54 0.00 -0.54 0.00 0.00
Totals: 36.01 7255.41 71.59 1288.62 501.58 -787.04 -80.97 -1457.46 Percent of Precip: 17.8% 6.9%
Scaling Factor: 2.57
Precipitation is from NOAA Gage USW00023259, Monterey Airport Basin Size is 2417.8 acres
Inflow and outflow estimated as change in lake level (ft) x 18 acre lake surface.

D05H2_Lake_El_Estero_working_3-5-24.xlsx\Rpt_Table 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 141, Packet Page 295

1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Lake El Estero Diversion
Table B-6: Estimated Runoff into Lake El Estero (acre-feet) - Updated Water Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1952 20 114 322 595 50 135 23 - - - - - 1,260
1953 - 71 207 36 - 24 34 - - - - - 373
1954 3 77 9 149 69 165 18 7 1 - - - 498
1955 - 35 99 220 40 - 18 6 - - - - 417
1956 - 62 516 220 75 - 46 6 - - - 3 928
1957 7 - 13 138 87 16 29 75 - - - 1 367
1958 33 9 131 158 192 254 342 13 1 - - 2 1,135
1959 - 3 4 267 265 0 2 - - - - 173 715
- - 3 129 160 1 9 1 - - - - 303
1961 - 51 12 33 19 62 33 3 - - - - 212
1962 - 24 23 96 171 87 0 - 1 - 2 - 404
1963 50 2 78 136 117 163 - - - - - - 547
1964 42 91 5 132 4 35 - 1 - - 3 - 315
1965 9 96 369 58 18 60 43 - - - - - 653
1966 0 278 264 89 32 2 0 - - 1 - 2 668
1967 - 124 305 269 3 284 274 3 38 - - - 1,299
1968 4 26 40 74 17 80 25 - - - 0 - 268
1969 0 82 48 645 308 23 82 - 0 - - - 1,189
7 16 93 284 46 212 0 - 0 - - - 657
1971 1 478 161 10 3 56 14 3 - - - 7 732
1972 - 50 151 21 11 - 2 - 0 - - - 235
1973 72 326 18 180 214 103 - - - - - 0 913
1974 73 79 196 147 6 155 219 - 4 0 - - 878
1975 40 4 56 22 74 86 15 - - - 7 - 304
1976 49 1 0 - 73 44 45 - 0 - 9 3 224
1977 16 10 106 94 10 46 - 9 - - - 9 301
1978 - 5 250 410 276 157 173 - - - - 1 1,272
1979 - 63 30 140 95 127 4 1 - 4 - - 464
48 73 103 140 195 46 23 3 - 22 - - 653
1981 - - 46 367 30 86 20 - - - - - 548
1982 72 232 25 154 70 295 150 - 5 - - 35 1,038
1983 84 301 164 457 144 591 165 1 - - - 47 1,953
1984 3 193 74 - 42 11 3 1 - - - - 328
1985 71 136 35 9 53 84 13 0 2 - - 0 403
1986 64 202 24 30 197 280 0 4 - - - 17 816
1987 - 0 22 73 111 60 7 - - - - - 274
1988 25 43 50 45 5 0 32 1 - - - - 200
1989 - 70 95 31 74 50 11 0 - - - 18 348
60 49 0 119 86 14 29 42 - - - - 399
1991 0 12 26 11 55 307 1 - - - - - 412
1992 39 - 142 83 401 148 - - - - - - 813
1993 8 0 276 656 413 90 14 3 7 - - - 1,467
1994 - 40 100 128 151 1 14 13 - - - - 447
1995 2 32 40 529 6 283 30 4 41 - - - 968
1996 - 0 38 160 607 94 11 39 - - - - 950
1997 13 118 395 486 - - 2 - - - 1 - 1,015
1998 5 350 135 624 1,566 105 126 45 - - - - 2,956
1999 17 56 9 48 90 39 57 - - - - 4 319
- 11 - 293 178 103 5 2 - - - 0 592
2001 126 - - 92 104 28 29 - - - - - 380
2002 0 53 137 31 11 13 0 10 - - - - 256
2003 - 72 277 15 38 17 12 2 - - - - 435
2004 4 22 201 71 85 5 - - - - - - 388
2005 124 11 268 192 131 125 15 4 1 - - - 871
2006 - 8 80 112 3 172 85 16 - - - - 474
2007 - 11 48 8 62 5 13 - - - - 2 150
2008 19 3 8 269 40 6 0 - - - - - 345
2009 0 14 52 66 137 52 1 0 - - - 0 323
141 0 33 282 39 105 76 3 - - - - 680
2011 4 37 80 66 211 237 - 6 11 - - - 651
2012 50 12 0 24 3 98 51 - 2 - - - 241
2013 3 116 138 5 12 7 - - - - - - 281
2014 7 5 2 - 129 90 12 - - - - 3 249
2015 65 24 746 - 11 0 12 0 - - - - 858
2016 - 144 70 245 40 253 4 0 - - - - 757
2017 96 16 22 405 273 45 9 - - - - - 866
2018 0 34 - 209 2 129 66 - - - - - 440
2019 0 100 - 76 405 40 0 52 - - - - 675
- 81 598 26 - 263 107 2 - - - - 1,077
2021 - 1 4 215 1 15 - - - - - - 236
2022 84 4 287 - 0 13 2 - - - - 43 433
2023 - 65 321 174 101 151 - 2 0 - - - 814
2024 - 8 96 73 170 346
Average
Minimum
Maximum
23 -
141
68 -
478
120
-
746
162
-
656
122
-
1,566
96 -
591
37 -
342
5 -
75 2
-
41 0
-
22 0
-
9 5
-
173
639
150
2,956
Statistics for period 1991-2020 (30-Year Climate)
Average 24 46 131
Minimum - - -
Maximum 141 350 746
174
-
656
173
-
1,566
95 -
307
25 -
126
7 -
52 2
-
41 -
-
-
0 -
1 0
-
4 678
150
2,956
El_Estero_Runoff_rev2024-10-07.xlsx/Runoff Summary 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 142, Packet Page 296

Lake El Estero Diversion
Table B-7: Estimated Transferable Runoff from Lake El Estero (acre-feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Type Year 1952 136 26 48 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 77 330 Wet
1953 18 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 4 70 Dry
1954 50 36 42 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 29 189 Normal
1955 69 16 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 86 188 Normal
1956 69 27 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 120 Dry
1957 66 44 7 16 16 0 0 0 0 20 0 49 218 Normal
1958 47 86 100 89 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 330 Wet
1959 65 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 190 Normal
1960 58 80 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 158 Normal
1961 19 8 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 13 87 Dry
1962 38 68 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 26 164 Normal
1963 32 45 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 59 0 197 Normal
1964 39 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 46 114 218 Normal
1965 25 8 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 94 273 Wet
1966 41 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 48 161 Normal
1967 74 0 69 123 0 16 0 0 0 0 15 18 315 Wet
1968 43 7 45 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 20 160 Normal
1969 165 87 8 19 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 39 330 Wet
1970 96 27 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 59 281 Wet
1971 2 0 29 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 32 71 140 Dry
1972 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 107 5 164 Normal
1973 69 104 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 37 53 340 Wet
1974 53 1 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 22 167 Normal
1975 10 45 48 7 0 0 0 2 0 32 0 0 144 Dry
19760 33 20 31 0 0 0 0 0 11 5 24 126 Dry
1977 44 5 16 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 51 121 Dry
1978 84 78 81 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 16 360 Wet
1979 48 49 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 39 32 236 Normal
1980 48 97 25 7 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 31 224 Normal
1981 81 17 40 13 0 0 0 0 0 20 84 15 269 Wet
1982 65 32 117 49 0 0 0 0 21 32 74 46 435 Wet
1983 96 91 134 63 0 0 0 0 16 0 95 31 527 Wet
19840 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 52 16 122 Dry
19850 16 49 8 0 0 0 0 0 16 76 13 177 Normal
1986 14 77 98 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 8 205 Normal
1987 41 16 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 16 27 31 167 Normal
1988 29 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 38 122 Dry
1989 16 23 27 6 0 0 0 0 12 16 16 0 115 Dry
1990 59 36 2 16 27 0 0 0 0 0 7 12 159 Normal
1991 6 35 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 23 193 Normal
1992 25 86 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 83 233 Normal
1993 170 106 46 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 31 375 Wet
1994 66 54 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 11 20 161 Normal
1995 156 0 96 14 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 20 301 Wet
1996 66 99 48 5 16 0 0 0 0 3 34 88 358 Wet
1997 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 39 247 Wet
1998 139 183 55 57 21 0 0 0 0 12 33 0 500 Wet
1999 26 20 20 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 100 Dry
2000 53 80 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 230 Normal
2001 53 70 17 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 54 239 Normal
2002 16 5 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 22 98 153 Normal
20035 16 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 44 86 Dry
2004 16 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 4 63 186 Normal
2005 54 56 39 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 196 Normal
2006 47 0 86 20 11 0 0 0 0 0 6 31 199 Normal
20071 42 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 61 Dry
2008 100 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 22 140 Dry
2009 32 57 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 17 152 Dry
2010 90 17 39 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 44 250 Wet
2011 38 80 92 0 0 6 0 0 0 31 0 0 246 Normal
2012 14 0 53 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 51 156 Normal
2013 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 8 Dry
20140 57 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 84 195 Normal
2015 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 36 87 Dry
2016 106 16 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 5 11 240 Normal
2017 101 58 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 195 Normal
2018 47 0 59 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 170 Normal
2019 44 161 18 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 45 66 354 Wet
2020 16 0 99 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 Dry
2021 25 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 91 154 Normal
2022 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 32 80 135 Dry
2023 67 39 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 46 214 Normal
2024 21 63
25th Percentile 16 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 152
50th Percentile 45 27 28 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 25 190
75th Percentile 68 66 49 17 0 0 0 0 0 16 33 49 247
Average 51 40 35 14 2 1 0 0 1 9 24 32 209
Minimum 000000000000 8
Maximum 170 183 134 123 27 16 16 2 32 65 107 114 527
Statistics for period 1991-2020 (30-Year Climate)
Water Year Type based on: Dry < 25th percentile, Wet > 75th percentile A maximum of 16 acre-feet from one day of runoff may be transferred to the M1W system.

This is based on only runoff in excess of 5 acre-feet in one day being transferable.

Average by Type
Wet 343
Normal 191
Dry 109
Average 53 45 37 10 3 1 0 0 0 9 15 32 205
Minimum 000000000000 8
Maximum 170 183 114 57 21 16 0 0 0 65 95 98 500
El_Estero_Runoff_rev2024-10-07.xlsx/Trans CY Summary 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 143, Packet Page 297

Lake El Estero Diverion
Table B-8: Estimated Transferable Runoff from Lake El Estero using new connection to Monterey Pump Station (acre-feet) Water Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total 1952 13 39 176 220 26 78 16 0 0 0 0 0 568
1953 0 41 128 24 0 19 24 0 0 0 0 0 235
1954 0 30 4 92 49 70 13 2 0 0 0 0 260
1955 0 25 43 111 29 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 209
1956 0 30 128 111 41 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 340
1957 0 0 8 98 55 7 19 30 0 0 0 0 217
1958 22 0 79 75 101 168 147 8 0 0 0 0 600
1959 0 0 0 118 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 339
1960 0 0 0 72 125 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 198
1961 0 31 2 19 8 30 26 0 0 0 0 0 116
1962 0 15 13 59 99 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 215
1963 30 0 40 60 73 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 274
1964 32 62 0 63 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 180
1965 3 63 183 39 8 38 26 0 0 0 0 0 359
1966 0 149 131 55 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 353
1967 0 77 82 129 0 111 154 0 30 0 0 0 582
1968 0 15 24 52 7 59 20 0 0 0 0 0 177
1969 0 43 20 272 142 8 33 0 0 0 0 0 518
1970 2 11 65 143 31 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 311
1971 0 106 101 2 0 43 4 0 0 0 0 2 257
1972 0 36 107 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162
1973 46 167 5 111 128 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 527
1974 39 51 81 95 1 78 39 0 0 0 0 0 383
1975 29 0 31 10 48 53 7 0 0 0 2 0 182
1976 39 0 0 0 47 33 35 0 0 0 0 0 155
1977 11 5 38 72 5 30 0 0 0 0 0 4 166
1978 0 0 71 132 126 106 114 0 0 0 0 0 549
1979 0 47 17 82 50 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 264
1980 33 53 47 82 126 25 7 0 0 17 0 0 389
1981 0 0 36 143 17 54 13 0 0 0 0 0 262
1982 34 139 15 99 52 155 80 0 0 0 0 25 599
1983 60 120 74 180 96 204 90 0 0 0 0 30 854
1984 0 119 45 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 186
1985 55 68 23 0 30 49 8 0 0 0 0 0 232
1986 30 124 13 14 118 159 0 0 0 0 0 10 467
1987 0 0 8 47 30 40 2 0 0 0 0 0 127
1988 16 31 31 30 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 125
1989 0 54 52 16 37 27 6 0 0 0 0 12 203
1990 30 30 0 74 53 2 24 27 0 0 0 0 240
1991 0 7 12 6 35 176 0 0 0 0 0 0 234
1992 30 0 37 39 132 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 303
1993 2 0 135 283 153 62 4 0 0 0 0 0 640
1994 0 29 45 90 78 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 252
1995 0 11 22 231 0 142 14 0 30 0 0 0 450
1996 0 0 23 104 150 65 5 30 0 0 0 0 377
1997 3 49 126 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365
1998 0 142 67 223 309 69 71 24 0 0 0 0 905
1999 12 40 0 29 34 22 41 0 0 0 0 0 178
2000 0 6 0 83 126 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 261
2001 90 0 0 65 72 17 19 0 0 0 0 0 263
2002 0 40 82 25 5 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 164
2003 0 36 143 5 28 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 225
2004 0 8 72 30 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161
2005 79 4 105 69 79 53 1 0 0 0 0 0 389
2006 0 0 58 65 0 110 34 11 0 0 0 0 277
2007 0 6 35 1 42 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 89
2008 12 0 0 137 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 161
2009 0 6 35 50 90 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 215
2010 30 0 17 132 17 67 57 0 0 0 0 0 319
2011 0 22 52 51 136 148 0 0 6 0 0 0 413
2012 37 0 0 14 0 77 36 0 0 0 0 0 164
2013 0 30 73 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110
2014 2 0 0 0 71 35 2 0 0 0 0 0 109
2015 30 19 140 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 193
2016 0 69 36 156 30 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 401
2017 60 5 11 148 100 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 344
2018 0 23 0 61 0 81 45 0 0 0 0 0 211
2019 0 60 0 56 261 19 0 30 0 0 0 0 426
2020 0 66 108 21 0 149 39 0 0 0 0 0 382
2021 0 0 0 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
2022 59 0 142 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 30 238
2023 0 48 150 97 67 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 443
2024 0 3 66 35 93 197
25th Percentile 0 0 8 24 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 186
50th Percentile 0 23 36 63 37 36 4 0 0 0 0 0 260
75th Percentile 30 49 79 111 93 70 25 0 0 0 0 0 383
Average 13 34 51 76 57 51 19 2 1 0 0 2 305
Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
Maximum 90 167 183 283 309 204 154 30 30 17 2 60 905
This is based on only runoff in excess of 5 acre-feet in one day being transferable.

A maximum of 30 acre-feet from one day of runoff may be transferred to the M1W system.

Statistics for period 1991-2020 (30-Year Climate)
Average 13 23 48 79 67 53 13 4 1 0 0 0 299
Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89
Maximum 90 142 143 283 309 176 71 30 30 0 0 0 905
El_Estero_Runoff_rev2024-10-07.xlsx/Transfer Summary 10/7/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 144, Packet Page 298

Table B-9: Figueroa Watershed Areas and Curve Numbers
Determination of available surface water for non-potable water supply Land Use Soil Curve Area Percent Impervious Pervious Curve Area Curve Curve Group Number Impervious Area Area Number Number Number
(AMC II) (acres) (acres) (acres) (AMC II) (acres) (AMC I) (AMC III) Pervious Area
1 LD A 34 0 15% 0.0 0.0 34 0.0 18 54
2 UHD A 34 0 90% 0.0 0.0 43 98.0 25 63
3 DV B 43 98 0% 0.0 98.0 48 83.3 29 68
4 MD B 48 0 30% 0.0 0.0 60 36.0 40 78
5 HD B 48 0 50% 0.0 0.0 65 45.1 45 82
6 LD B 48 98 15% 14.7 83.3 66 230.0 46 82
7 UHD B 48 0 90% 0.0 0.0 70 351.1 51 85
8 DV C 60 36 0% 0.0 36.0 843
9 HD C 65 0 50% 0.0 0.0 Impervious Area
10 LD C 65 53 15% 8.0 45.1 98 343 94 99
11 UHD C 65 0 90% 0.0 0.0
12 DV D 66 230 0% 0.0 230.0
13 HD D 70 198 50% 99.0 99.0
14 LD D 70 273 15% 41.0 232.1
15 UHD D 70 200 90% 180.0 20.0
16 Lake n\a 100 0 100% 0.0 0.0
1186 343 843
Scrub runoff curve numbers used for dense vegetation
Irrigated pasture runoff curve numbers used for pervious areas of all other land use Curve numbers come from NRCS Pub TR-55
AMC values come from NRCS Pub NEH-4 (National Engineering Handbook, Part 630, Chapter 10) Figueroa_Runoff_Updated.xlsx/Land Use & Soil 5/30/2023
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 145, Packet Page 299

1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Lake El Estero Diversion
Table B-10: Estimated Runoff from Figueroa Drainage Basin (acre-feet) Water Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1952 7 40 115 213 18 48 8 - - - - - 449
1953 - 25 73 13 - 9 12 - - - - - 132
1954 1 27 3 53 24 58 6 3 0 - - - 176
1955 - 12 35 78 14 - 6 2 - - - - 147
1956 - 22 192 78 27 - 16 2 - - - 1 338
1957 3 - 5 49 31 6 10 26 - - - 0 130
1958 12 3 46 56 68 90 122 4 0 - - 1 403
1959 - 1 2 95 95 0 1 - - - - 62 255
- - 1 46 57 0 3 0 - - - - 108
1961 - 18 4 11 7 22 12 1 - - - - 75
1962 - 8 8 34 61 31 0 - 0 - 1 - 143
1963 18 1 28 48 43 58 - - - - - - 195
1964 15 32 2 47 2 13 - 0 - - 1 - 112
1965 3 34 133 21 6 21 15 - - - - - 233
1966 0 100 97 31 11 1 0 - - 0 - 1 241
1967 - 44 101 95 1 102 98 1 14 - - - 455
1968 2 9 14 26 6 28 9 - - - 0 - 95
1969 0 29 17 230 111 8 29 - 0 - - - 424
2 6 33 101 16 73 0 - 0 - - - 232
1971 1 153 58 3 1 20 5 1 - - - 2 244
1972 - 18 54 7 4 - 1 - 0 - - - 84
1973 26 117 6 64 76 36 - - - - - 0 324
1974 26 28 69 53 2 55 78 - 1 0 - - 313
1975 14 1 20 8 26 30 5 - - - 3 - 108
1976 17 0 0 - 26 15 16 - 0 - 3 1 79
1977 6 4 37 35 4 16 - 3 - - - 3 108
1978 - 2 92 134 98 55 61 - - - - 0 442
1979 - 22 11 50 33 45 1 0 - 1 - - 164
17 26 37 50 71 16 8 1 - 8 - - 233
1981 - - 16 137 10 30 7 - - - - - 201
1982 25 84 9 54 25 105 54 - 2 - - 12 371
1983 30 108 58 162 51 207 59 0 - - - 17 690
1984 1 68 26 - 15 4 1 0 - - - - 116
1985 25 48 12 3 19 30 5 0 1 - - 0 143
1986 23 73 8 10 72 102 0 1 - - - 6 295
1987 - 0 8 26 39 21 2 - - - - - 97
1988 9 15 18 16 2 0 11 0 - - - - 71
1989 - 25 34 11 26 18 4 0 - - - 6 123
21 17 0 42 30 5 10 15 - - - - 141
1991 0 4 9 4 19 111 0 - - - - - 148
1992 14 - 50 29 133 52 - - - - - - 279
1993 3 0 100 234 150 32 5 1 2 - - - 527
1994 - 14 35 45 53 0 5 4 - - - - 158
1995 1 11 14 194 2 100 11 2 14 - - - 350
1996 - 0 13 57 201 33 4 14 - - - - 322
1997 5 42 143 172 - - 1 - - - 0 - 362
1998 2 126 48 217 488 37 46 16 - - - - 979
1999 6 20 3 17 32 14 20 - - - - 1 113
- 4 - 102 63 36 2 1 - - - 0 208
2001 45 - - 33 37 10 10 - - - - - 134
2002 0 19 49 11 4 5 0 4 - - - - 90
2003 - 26 99 5 14 6 4 1 - - - - 155
2004 1 8 71 27 30 2 - - - - - - 139
2005 44 4 95 68 47 44 5 2 0 - - - 309
2006 - 3 28 40 1 61 30 6 - - - - 168
2007 - 4 17 3 22 2 5 - - - - 1 53
2008 7 1 3 96 14 2 0 - - - - - 123
2009 0 5 18 23 49 19 0 0 - - - 0 114
50 0 12 102 14 37 27 1 - - - - 244
2011 1 13 28 23 76 85 - 2 4 - - - 233
2012 18 4 0 8 1 35 18 - 1 - - - 85
2013 1 41 51 2 4 2 - - - - - - 101
2014 2 2 1 - 46 33 4 - - - - 1 90
2015 23 8 249 - 4 0 4 0 - - - - 288
2016 - 51 25 87 14 92 1 0 - - - - 271
2017 34 6 8 148 98 16 3 - - - - - 313
2018 0 12 - 75 1 46 23 - - - - - 157
2019 0 35 - 27 145 14 0 18 - - - - 240
- 29 188 9 - 95 38 1 - - - - 359
2021 - 0 1 79 0 5 - - - - - - 87
2022 30 2 103 - 0 4 1 - - - - 15 154
2023 - 23 115 62 36 53 - 1 0 - - - 289
2024 - 3 34 26 62 124
Average
Minimum
Maximum
8 -
50 24
-
153
42 -
249
58 -
234
42 -
488
34 -
207
13 -
122
2 -
26 1
-
14 0
-
8 0
-
3 2
-
62 225
53 979
Statistics for period 1991-2020 (30-Year Climate)
Average 9 16 45
Minimum - - -
Maximum 50 126 249
62 -
234
59 -
488
34 -
111
9 -
46 2
-
18 1
-
14 -
-
-
0 -
0 0
-
1 237
53 979
Figueroa_Runoff_Updated.xlsx/Runoff Summary 10/7/2024
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 146, Packet Page 300 Table B-12: Lake El Estero and Monterey Bay Water Quality Stream Location Analyte Name
No.

Samples Units Mean Min Max
Lake El Estero 4 samples, 5/25/2023 Bicarbonate Alkalinity (HCO3) 4 mg/L 243.63 187.0000 285.50 Lake El Estero 4 samples, 5/25/2023 Boron 4 mg/L 0.17 0.10 0.25 Lake El Estero 4 samples, 5/25/2023 Calcium 4 mg/L 103.3 89.0 109.0 Lake El Estero 4 samples, 5/25/2023 Nitrate as N 4 mg/L 0.0000 0.00 0.000 Lake El Estero 2 samples, 7/6/2009 E. Coli 2 #/100 ml 48 10 86 Lake El Estero 2 samples, 7/6/2009 Coliform, Total 2 #/100 ml 6,499 6,131 6,867 Lake El Estero 2 samples, 7/6/2009 Enterococcus 2 #/100 ml 31 31 31 Lake El Estero 4 samples, 5/25/2023 Sulfate 4 mg/L 155.3 140.0 165.0 Lake El Estero 4 samples, 5/25/2023 Dissolved Solids, Total 4 mg/L 967.5 844.0 1,032.0 Lake El Estero 4 samples, 5/25/2023 Total Suspended Solids 4 mg/L 16.0 7.0 23.0 Lake El Estero 4 samples, 5/25/2023 Chloride  4 mg/L 296.5 242.0 324.0 Lake El Estero 4 samples, 5/25/2023 Potassium 4 mg/L 5.0 4.2 5.6 Lake El Estero 4 samples, 5/25/2023 Magnesium 4 mg/L 34.3 30.4 36.0 Twin 51" Outfalls below El Estero Nitrate 14 mg/L 0.62 0.16 1.30 Twin 51" Outfalls below El Estero Phosporus 15 mg/L 0.40 0.00 0.97 Twin 51" Outfalls below El Estero Urea 16 ug/L 317.86 16.00 920.00 Twin 51" Outfalls below El Estero E. Coli 17 MPN/100 mL 61,240 50 229,170 Twin 51" Outfalls below El Estero Enteroccoccus 18 MPN/100 mL 54,199 125 227,516 Twin 51" Outfalls below El Estero Zinc 19 ug/L 142.0 20.0 385.0 Twin 51" Outfalls below El Estero Copper 20 ug/L 36.54 5.00 99.00 Twin 51" Outfalls below El Estero Lead 21 ug/L 9.85 0.00 44.00 Twin 51" Outfalls below El Estero Total Suspended Solids 22 mg/L 40.07 0.00 183.00 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Calcium 7 mg/L 68.57 14.00 130.00 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Coliform, Total 15 MPN/100 mL 43,024 104 241,960 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Copper 7 ug/L 84.3 28.0 143.0 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Escherichia coli 18 MPN/100 mL 11,674 6 141,361 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Lead 7 ug/L 88.75 11.00 283.00 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Magnesium 7 mg/L 17.75 7.00 27.00 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Nitrate as N 18 mg/L 0.43 0.01 1.31 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Oil and Grease 1 mg/L 0.00 0.00 0.00 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Orthophosphate as P 19 mg/L 0.10 0.01 0.25 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Oxygen, Dissolved 3 mg/L 7.17 6.00 8.00 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Total Dissolved Solids 15 mg/L 399.73 149.00 930.00 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Total Suspended Solids 7 mg/L 268.00 47.00 782.00 Don Dahvee Creek above El Estero Zinc 7 ug/L 318.50 116.00 456.00 Monterey Bay South Coastline Ammonia as N 11 mg/L 0.023636 0.02 0.04000 Monterey Bay South Coastline Chlordanes 3 ng/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 Monterey Bay South Coastline ColiformFecal 13 MPN/100 ml 2 2 2 Monterey Bay South Coastline ColiformTotal 12 MPN/100 ml 60 2 659 Monterey Bay South Coastline Enterococcus 12 MPN/100 ml 2 2 2 Monterey Bay South Coastline Nitrate as N 12 mg/L 0.04 0.01 0.16 Monterey Bay South Coastline Orthophosphate as P 12 mg/L 0.02 0.01 0.04 Monterey Bay South Coastline Silica 12 mg/L 0.51 0.17 1.20 Monterey Bay South Coastline Total Suspended Solids 12 mg/L 13.35 6.70 34.40 Monterey Bay South Coastline Urea as N 12 ug/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 Highlighted cells exceed objective / standards. See table B13 Min value of 0.00 = Not Detected.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 147, Packet Page 301

Table B-13: Water Quality Objectives
Analyte Name Units Standard Reference
Nitrate as N mg/L 2.25 CCAMP Proposed
Orthophosphate as P mg/L 0.12 CCAMP Proposed
E. coli MPN/100 ml 400 EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria Enterococcus MPN/100 ml 104 EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria Zinc ug/L 200 Basin Plan Objective
Copper ug/L 30 Basin Plan Objective
Lead ug/L 30 Basin Plan Objective
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 500 Basin Plan Objective WQ_Summary_Tables.xlsx/Standards 4/22/2014
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 148, Packet Page 302 Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Appendix C: Conceptual Diversion Facility
Figure 1: Lake El Estero Water Intake Alignments
Figure 2: Lake El Estero Water Intake, Elevation
Figure 3: Lake El Estero Water Intake, Pump Option
Figure 4: Pump House Detail
Table C-1: Gravity Option Head Calculations
Table C-2: Pump Option Head Calculations
Table C-3: Estimated Cost of Construction, Gravity Option Table C-4: Estimated Cost of Construction, Pump Option
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 149, Packet Page 303 Figure 1 - Lake El Estero Water Intake Alignments
SSMH D05-052
Schaaf Er Wheeler
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 150, Packet Page 304 ELEV. 7' ±

LAKE EL ESTERO
ROCK

WATER INTAKE
SCREEN
GRAVEL

CONTROL
VALVE
VALVE
2 - 45° ELBOW

FITTINGS

FLOW METER

CHECK VALVE
ELEV. 10.5' (±)
~:;~·::_·~~-\~~-·:\ ••
. -~:. -~ .·•
Schaaf©' Wheeler

CONTROL PANEL

EXISTING SANITARY
SEWER MANHOLE 052
INV ELEV. -0.9 FT
Figure 2 - Lake El Estero Water Intake -Elevation
NOT TO SCALE, DATUM PER 1967 PUMP STATION PLANS
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 151, Packet Page 305 Figure 3 - Lake El Estero Water Intake Pump Option
SSMH D05-052
Schaaf fr Wheeler
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 152, Packet Page 306 Figure 4 Pump House Detail
i---------- - -- - -- - ---- ---------"c=---"<---- - - - - - - - - - --------------l i
C)
,,
\\J
, ,
l ~ ,I
I
,, I\.J
Ii)
Cl
, I
I\, i
I
- ~ ------ ·- -----~ -
0 t
'.,S
'-!.
'<j-
,, a 0 (l\ -~ ' I ,, 1---+-t-~- - - - - - ----
,I
-..!.
a 'I
'\J
()
'I\,
..

I\) ':s ½ ,, t\, r /"lofy,A L,Oe ~ ,,
""4 Gl8 'W cW ;} >ot5e1e·0/l,
¥4e 18'' 0 /c.

Schaaf~ Wheeler
4 FT
8 FT

FLYGT PUMP
PL 7020 (E) PUMP VAULT WALL

CHECK DISHARGE TO
12" GV VALVE SANITARY SEWER
SOURCE: LAKE EL ESTERO FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT AS BUILT 6/17/68 SCALE 1" = 4 FT
ATTACHMENT 2 Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 153, Packet Page 307

Table C-1: Gravity Option
Estimate gravity flow potential from the lake to the SSMH.

Available head approx 5-ft for down-turned outlet.

Length 40 ft Element Elevation
Diameter 16 inch Pump Station Deck 10.5 ft
Material C900 PVC Lake Surface 7.0 ft
Hazen-Williams 130 SSMH Rim 10.5 ft
SSMH Invert -0.9 ft
Fitting K SSMH Pipe Crown 0.9 ft
entrance 1.00 Diversion Outlet 1.9 ft
90-bend 0.30 Static Head 5.2 ft
gate valve 0.19
mag meter 0
swing check 2.50
45-bend 0.20
45-bend 0.20
exit 1.00
Total minor losses 5.39
Pipeline Minor Total
Q Q V Loss Losses Losses
gpm cfs fps ft ft ft
2000 4.456 3.19 0.09 0.85 0.94
2050 4.568 3.27 0.09 0.90 0.99
2100 4.679 3.35 0.10 0.94 1.04
2150 4.791 3.43 0.10 0.99 1.09
2200 4.902 3.51 0.11 1.03 1.14
2250 5.013 3.59 0.11 1.08 1.19
2300 5.125 3.67 0.12 1.13 1.24
2350 5.236 3.75 0.12 1.18 1.30
2400 5.348 3.83 0.13 1.23 1.35
2450 5.459 3.91 0.13 1.28 1.41
2500 5.570 3.99 0.14 1.33 1.47
2550 5.682 4.07 0.14 1.39 1.53
2600 5.793 4.15 0.15 1.44 1.59
2650 5.905 4.23 0.15 1.50 1.65
2700 6.016 4.31 0.16 1.55 1.71
2750 6.127 4.39 0.16 1.61 1.77
2800 6.239 4.47 0.17 1.67 1.84
2850 6.350 4.55 0.17 1.73 1.90
2900 6.462 4.63 0.18 1.79 1.97
2950 6.573 4.71 0.18 1.85 2.04
3000 6.684 4.79 0.19 1.92 2.11
3050 6.796 4.87 0.20 1.98 2.18
3100 6.907 4.95 0.20 2.05 2.25
3150 7.019 5.03 0.21 2.11 2.32
3200 7.130 5.11 0.21 2.18 2.40
3250 7.242 5.19 0.22 2.25 2.47
3300 7.353 5.27 0.23 2.32 2.55
3350 7.464 5.35 0.23 2.39 2.62
3400 7.576 5.43 0.24 2.46 2.70
3450 7.687 5.51 0.25 2.54 2.78
3500 7.799 5.59 0.25 2.61 2.86
3550 7.910 5.67 0.26 2.69 2.95
3600 8.021 5.74 0.27 2.76 3.03
3650 8.133 5.82 0.27 2.84 3.11
3700 8.244 5.90 0.28 2.92 3.20
gpd AF/day
2,880,000 8.84
2,952,000 9.06
3,024,000 9.28
3,096,000 9.50
3,168,000 9.72
3,240,000 9.94
3,312,000 10.16
3,384,000 10.39
3,456,000 10.61
3,528,000 10.83
3,600,000 11.05
3,672,000 11.27
3,744,000 11.49
3,816,000 11.71
3,888,000 11.93
3,960,000 12.15
4,032,000 12.37
4,104,000 12.60
4,176,000 12.82
4,248,000 13.04
4,320,000 13.26
4,392,000 13.48
4,464,000 13.70
4,536,000 13.92
4,608,000 14.14
4,680,000 14.36
4,752,000 14.58
4,824,000 14.81
4,896,000 15.03
4,968,000 15.25
5,040,000 15.47
5,112,000 15.69
5,184,000 15.91
5,256,000 16.13
Target Flow ---> 5,328,000 16.35
El Estero Gravity Sewer_rev2024-10-08.xlsx/Gravity Option 10/9/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 154, Packet Page 308

Table C2: Pump Option
Estimate pump size and pipeline diameter to move flow from the lake to the SSMH.

Maximum flow of 3,700 gpm.

Length 40 ft
Diameter 12 inch
Material C151 DIP
Hazen-Williams 120
Fitting K
entrance 1.00
tee-branch 1.80
gate valve 0.19
mag meter 0
swing check 2.50
90-bend 0.30
90-bend 0.30
exit 1.00
Total minor losses 7.09
Target Flow --->
Lake Lvl 7.0 ft
Discharge 4.0 ft
Static H -3.0 ft
Pipeline
Loss
Minor
Losses
Static
Lift
Total
Q Q V Losses
gpm cfs fps ft ft ft ft gpd AF/day HP
2500 5.57 7.09 0.64 5.54 -3 3.18 3,600,000 11.05 4.01
2550 5.68 7.23 0.66 5.76 -3 3.42 3,672,000 11.27 4.41
2600 5.79 7.38 0.69 5.99 -3 3.68 3,744,000 11.49 4.83
2650 5.90 7.52 0.71 6.22 -3 3.93 3,816,000 11.71 5.26
2700 6.02 7.66 0.74 6.46 -3 4.20 3,888,000 11.93 5.72
2750 6.13 7.80 0.76 6.70 -3 4.46 3,960,000 12.15 6.20
2800 6.24 7.94 0.79 6.95 -3 4.73 4,032,000 12.37 6.69
2850 6.35 8.09 0.81 7.20 -3 5.01 4,104,000 12.60 7.21
2900 6.46 8.23 0.84 7.45 -3 5.29 4,176,000 12.82 7.75
2950 6.57 8.37 0.87 7.71 -3 5.58 4,248,000 13.04 8.31
3000 6.68 8.51 0.89 7.97 -3 5.87 4,320,000 13.26 8.89
3050 6.80 8.65 0.92 8.24 -3 6.16 4,392,000 13.48 9.50
3100 6.91 8.79 0.95 8.52 -3 6.47 4,464,000 13.70 10.12
3150 7.02 8.94 0.98 8.79 -3 6.77 4,536,000 13.92 10.77
3200 7.13 9.08 1.01 9.07 -3 7.08 4,608,000 14.14 11.44
3250 7.24 9.22 1.04 9.36 -3 7.40 4,680,000 14.36 12.14
3300 7.35 9.36 1.07 9.65 -3 7.72 4,752,000 14.58 12.86
3350 7.46 9.50 1.10 9.94 -3 8.04 4,824,000 14.81 13.60
3400 7.58 9.65 1.13 10.24 -3 8.37 4,896,000 15.03 14.37 3450 7.69 9.79 1.16 10.55 -3 8.70 4,968,000 15.25 15.17 3500 7.80 9.93 1.19 10.85 -3 9.04 5,040,000 15.47 15.99 3550 7.91 10.07 1.22 11.17 -3 9.39 5,112,000 15.69 16.83 3600 8.02 10.21 1.25 11.48 -3 9.74 5,184,000 15.91 17.70 3650 8.13 10.36 1.29 11.80 -3 10.09 5,256,000 16.13 18.60 3700 8.24 10.50 1.32 12.13 -3 10.45 5,328,000 16.35 19.52 HP calculation assumes 50% pump-motor efficiency
El Estero Gravity Sewer_rev2024-10-08.xlsx/Pump Option 10/9/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 155, Packet Page 309

Table C-3 - Estimated Cost Of Construction of the Lake El Estero Diversion Structure Gravity Option - Conceptual Design Cost Estimate
15-Mar-24
By: A. Sterbenz
Item of Work Unit Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal
Mobilization / Demobilization
~ 5% of of project cost. This cost includes
permits, fees, temporary structures,
equipment rental and various misc. items $12,000
Site Improvements
Intake Screen EA $25,000.00 1 $25,000
16" PVC Pipe w/ Trenching and Backfill LF $300.00 80 $24,000 16" Butterfly Valve EA $20,000.00 1 $20,000
Motor Operator, 1 hp EA $5,000.00 1 $5,000
16" Magnetic Meter EA $20,000.00 1 $20,000
16" Check Valve, Flex-type EA $38,000.00 1 $38,000
De-watering & Site Preparation LS $60,000.00 1 $60,000
Tie-in to Existing SSMH LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000
Site Restoration LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000
Electrical Equipment
Electrical Control Equipment LS $25,000.00 1 $25,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $249,000
INSPECTION AND TESTING (15%) $37,000
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (20%) $50,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $336,000
This estimate of construction cost is a professional opinion, based upon the engineer's experience with the design and construction of similar projects. It is prepared only as a guide and is subject to change. Schaaf & Wheeler and its subconsultants make no warranty, whether expressed or implied, that the actual costs will not vary from these estimated costs, and assumes no liability for such variances.

This estimate specifically excludes any costs associated with designing for handling and disposal of hazardous wastes and contaminated materials. Costs associated with land, right-of-way, or easement purchase are not included in this estimate.

ENR CCF for San Francisco: 15459
El Estero Diversion Structure_2024.xlsx/Concept Estimate_Gravity 10/9/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 156, Packet Page 310

Table C-4 - Estimated Cost Of Construction of the Lake El Estero Diversion Structure Pump Option - Conceptual Design Cost Estimate
15-Mar-24
By: A. Sterbenz
Item of Work Unit Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal
Mobilization / Demobilization
~ 5% of of project cost. This cost includes
permits, fees, temporary structures,
equipment rental and various misc. items $13,000
Pump
Flygt Pump 7020 (20hp) EA $50,000.00 1 $50,000
Pump Column LF $500.00 10 $5,000
Site Improvements
12" PVC Pipe w/ Trenching and Backfill LF $210.00 60 $12,600 12" Gate Vale EA $14,670.00 1 $14,670
12" Magnetic Meter EA $15,000.00 1 $15,000
12" Check Valve EA $15,330.00 1 $15,330
1" Air Release Valve EA $1,100.00 1 $1,100
De-watering & Site Preparation LS $50,000.00 1 $50,000
Tie-in to Existing SSMH LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000
Site Restoration LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000
Electrical Equipment
Electrical and Control Equipment LS $75,000.00 1 $75,000 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $271,700
INSPECTION AND TESTING (15%) $41,000
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (20%) $54,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $367,000
This estimate of construction cost is a professional opinion, based upon the engineer's experience with the design and construction of similar projects. It is prepared only as a guide and is subject to change. Schaaf & Wheeler and its subconsultants make no warranty, whether expressed or implied, that the actual costs will not vary from these estimated costs, and assumes no liability for such variances.

This estimate specifically excludes any costs associated with designing for handling and disposal of hazardous wastes and contaminated materials. Costs associated with land, right-of-way, or easement purchase are not included in this estimate.

ENR CCF for San Francisco: 15459
El Estero Diversion Structure_2024.xlsx/Concept Estimate_Pump 10/9/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 157, Packet Page 311

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Appendix D: Flow Monitoring
D1. Sanitary Sewer at Lake El Estero
The City of Monterey completed a Sewer System Master Plan Update in late 2020. This effort included flow monitoring at 12 manholes, whose locations varied from Cannery Row in Monterey to Grace Hopper Avenue near the Monterey Airport. The flow monitoring period was from 2/12/2020 to 3/26/2020. The metered flow data was used to calibrate the system model. One of the meters was installed in manhole D05-052, labeled FM-8 in the report, recording flows in the 21- inch pipe that connects El Estero Lake with the M1W Interceptor that heads towards the Monterey Pump Station. The average dry weather flow (ADWF) in February was 0.601 mgd, and the average dry weather flow in March was 0.566 mgd. The observed average wet weather flows (AWWF) in February was 0.892 mgd and the peak wet weather flow (PWWF) was 1.547 mgd. In March, the observed average wet weather flow was 0.724 mgd, and the peak wet weather flow 1.027 mgd.

There was very little change to the average dry weather flows from February to March, despite the County issuing a Shelter-in-Place mandate8 during the monitoring period. The surrounding area is predominantly residential with apartment complexes and single-family homes.

The observed peak dry weather flow (PDWF) was 0.884 mgd in March 2020. The PDWF peaking factor is approximately 1.5 x the ADWF. The observed PWWF is 1.8 x the PDWF, but for our analysis we will use 2.0 x PDWF to estimate the PWWF. For this sewer segment, the PWWF is

1.8 mgd, or 1300 gpm.
8 During the calibration test period, there was a shelter-in-place mandate issued across the country due to the Covid-19 pandemic that occurred in early 2020.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 158, Packet Page 312

I I
Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study D2. Figueroa Box Culvert
Schaaf & Wheeler conducted storm sewer flow monitoring in Pearl Street above Figueroa Street in Monterey. A depth monitor and data logger were installed in the storm drain downstream of Pearl Street. The gage was active from November 26, 2013, to March 28, 2014. During that period there was limited rainfall. The two-day storm of February 28 – March 1, 2014 was used as a calibration check for the runoff prediction model.

The data logger collected water depth at a one-minute time step. Depth was converted to flow using Manning’s equation and the following parameters: Pipe roughness of n = 0.013, slope =

0.0071 ft/ft, box width 9-ft, box height 4.5-ft at center and 4.25-ft at sides (valley gutter at invert).

R S
n
V
486.1 3/2 2/1






=
Where:

V= velocity in feet/second
n = roughness coefficient
R = hydraulic radius
S = slope of the pipeline
Cumulative flow was totaled and converted to acre-feet. Totals for the 2-day storm were compared to the modeled outputs:

Precipitation Metered Flow Modeled Flow
Date (in) (ac-ft) (ac-ft)
2/28/2014 1.38 23.1 23.7
3/1/2014 0.98 11.7 30.3
Modeled results for the first day were within 5% of the metered daily flow, which was better than expected. The modeled results for the second day were almost 300% of the metered flow. The majority of the flows on both days are from the hardscape. The difference between the two on 3/1/14 was due the model’s adjustment of the curve numbers based on the cumulative precipitation in the preceding 5 days. The model applied below-average curve numbers for the condition on 2/28/14 and matched the observed flows. It applied above-average curve numbers for the condition on 3/1/14. This error does not affect the stormwater capture model, which by-passes peak flows. Therefore, the runoff model was not adjusted.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 159, Packet Page 313 Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Attachments:

D-1, Monitoring Locations
D-2, Sanitary Sewer Flows, 2/12/2020 – 3/26/2020
Precipitation during Storm Drain Monitoring Period, 2014 Figueroa Box Culvert Flows, 2/26/2014 – 3/1/2014
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 160, Packet Page 314 Figure D-1: Flow Monitoring Locations for Lake El Estero Level Sensor in
SW Pump Well
Flow meter
in 21” SS
Flow meter
Pearl at
Figueroa
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 161, Packet Page 315 ll!.b-___.__________._ _ ______.___ _ _____._____.....___________.__ _ _____, Table 2 Calibration Results Summary
Sewer System Master Plan City of Monterey

PRELIMINARY
Flow Monitoring ID Units
Pre-Shelter In Place
Dry Period (Weekday)
Minimum Maximum Average
Pre-Shelter In Place
Dry Period (Weekend)
Minimum Maximum Average
Post-Shelter In Place
Dry Period (Weekday)
Minimum Maximum Average
Post-Shelter In Place
Dry Period (Weekend)
Minimum Maximum Average
Wet Weather (Event 1)
(March 13- March 17)
Minimum Maximum Average
Wet Weather (Event 2)
(March 20 - March 24)
Minimum Maximum Average
S-1
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.127 0.623 0.298 0.096 0.641 0.301

0.133 0.613 0.313 0.125 0.611 0.314

0.113 0.461 0.281 0.136 0.472 0.281

0.126 0.333 0.250 0.120 0.359 0.255

0.084 0.957 0.418 0.096 0.886 0.417

0.070 0.619 0.382

0.133 0.618 0.303
Difference (mgd)
(%)
-0.0316 0.0182 0.0021
-24.82 2.92 0.70
-0.0087 -0.0023 0.0005
-6.52 -0.37 0.15

0.0233 0.0103 -0.0005

20.54 2.23 -0.18
-0.0063 0.0266 0.0052
-4.96 7.98 2.07

0.0116 -0.0711 -0.0010

13.71 -7.42 -0.25

0.0634 -0.0003 -0.0792

91.00 -0.06 -20.73
S-2
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.002 0.057 0.029 0.002 0.057 0.029

0.002 0.036 0.016 0.002 0.036 0.016

0.001 0.016 0.007 0.001 0.016 0.007

0.002 0.020 0.008 0.002 0.020 0.008

0.001 0.330 0.041 0.002 0.341 0.054

0.001 0.127 0.019

0.001 0.179 0.018
Difference (mgd)
(%)

0.0000 -0.0004 0.0000

1.66 -0.73 -0.08

0.0001 -0.0002 0.0000

6.88 -0.58 -0.05

0.0000 -0.0004 0.0000
-0.59 -2.38 0.03

0.0000 -0.0003 0.0000

1.06 -1.50 0.08

0.0008 0.0108 0.0131

77.92 3.26 32.13
-0.0001 0.0513 -0.0014
-7.30 40.25 -7.17
S-3
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.002 0.007 0.004 0.002 0.007 0.004

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002

0.001 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.003

0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002

0.001 0.012 0.003 0.002 0.010 0.004

0.001 0.012 0.002

0.001 0.005 0.002
Difference (mgd)
(%)

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1.39 -0.03 -0.04

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
-0.06 -0.25 0.08

0.0000 -0.0001 0.0000

2.72 -1.32 0.04

0.0001 0.0000 0.0000

5.07 -0.97 -0.16

0.0008 -0.0022 0.0004
106.40 -18.47 12.64

0.0005 -0.0065 0.0004

67.47 -54.89 18.62
S-4
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.010 0.076 0.044 0.010 0.075 0.044

0.010 0.081 0.045 0.010 0.079 0.045

0.011 0.082 0.049 0.011 0.082 0.049

0.011 0.083 0.048 0.011 0.082 0.048

0.010 0.149 0.074 0.010 0.153 0.080

0.025 0.119 0.072

0.011 0.105 0.061
Difference (mgd)
(%)
-0.0001 -0.0011 0.0000
-1.30 -1.44 0.00
-0.0002 -0.0017 0.0000
-1.53 -2.07 -0.11

0.0001 -0.0007 0.0000

0.66 -0.87 -0.04

0.0002 -0.0013 0.0000

1.62 -1.63 0.04

0.0007 0.0038 0.0060

7.52 2.56 8.09
-0.0137 -0.0134 -0.0106
-54.45 -11.32 -14.68
S-5
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.001 0.017 0.007 0.001 0.016 0.007

0.001 0.014 0.007 0.001 0.014 0.007

0.000 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.001

0.000 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.001

0.000 0.017 0.004 0.001 0.018 0.008

0.000 0.010 0.001

0.000 0.008 0.001
Difference (mgd)
(%)

0.0000 -0.0002 0.0000

1.18 -1.09 0.03

0.0000 -0.0006 0.0000

3.91 -4.53 -0.05

0.0001 -0.0003 0.0000

86.60 -9.44 -0.08

0.0000 -0.0002 0.0000

1.26 -10.34 -0.09

0.0009 0.0004 0.0042
3,733.37 2.28 116.61

0.0000 -0.0029 -0.0002

44.62 -27.98 -10.78
S-6
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.008 0.035 0.018 0.008 0.035 0.018

0.007 0.015 0.011 0.007 0.015 0.011

0.010 0.031 0.018 0.010 0.031 0.018

0.003 0.022 0.014 0.003 0.022 0.014

0.001 0.022 0.005 0.001 0.015 0.005

0.006 0.013 0.008

0.001 0.013 0.007
Difference (mgd)
(%)

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.00 0.00 0.00
-0.0008 -0.0063 -0.0003
-59.52 -28.97 -6.56
-0.0044 0.0002 -0.0007
-77.98 1.81 -9.31
S-7
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.085 0.446 0.303 0.091 0.431 0.303

0.088 0.555 0.357 0.094 0.549 0.356

0.093 0.374 0.251 0.095 0.370 0.252

0.084 0.430 0.257 0.086 0.420 0.257

0.080 0.703 0.424 0.091 0.757 0.442

0.146 0.542 0.351

0.095 0.475 0.288
Difference (mgd)
(%)

0.0061 -0.0153 0.0001

7.19 -3.43 0.04

0.0067 -0.0069 -0.0007

7.66 -1.24 -0.21

0.0018 -0.0042 0.0001

1.88 -1.13 0.04

0.0021 -0.0096 0.0001

2.54 -2.23 0.06

0.0109 0.0547 0.0187

13.55 7.79 4.41
-0.0513 -0.0670 -0.0635
-35.07 -12.36 -18.09
S-8
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.248 0.814 0.595 0.249 0.809 0.595

0.244 0.884 0.607 0.241 0.868 0.598

0.269 0.781 0.566 0.265 0.781 0.566

0.279 0.850 0.567 0.277 0.822 0.561

0.285 1.547 0.892 0.244 1.379 0.866

0.348 1.027 0.724

0.264 1.047 0.662
Difference (mgd)
(%)

0.0014 -0.0051 0.0002

0.56 -0.63 0.04
-0.0031 -0.0166 -0.0089
-1.28 -1.88 -1.47
-0.0041 -0.0001 0.0000
-1.52 -0.01 -0.01
-0.0019 -0.0280 -0.0062
-0.70 -3.29 -1.10
-0.0402 -0.1681 -0.0260
-14.14 -10.86 -2.92
-0.0844 0.0198 -0.0620
-24.24 1.93 -8.57
S-9
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.271 0.925 0.685 0.260 0.963 0.685

0.282 1.045 0.689 0.269 1.089 0.696

0.287 0.890 0.651 0.280 0.902 0.650

0.272 0.961 0.648 0.282 0.922 0.635

0.214 1.832 1.000 0.260 1.671 1.019

0.381 1.260 0.858

0.276 1.324 0.749
Difference (mgd)
(%)
-0.0115 0.0388 0.0002
-4.25 4.20 0.03
-0.0136 0.0433 0.0072
-4.81 4.14 1.05
-0.0069 0.0126 -0.0006
-2.40 1.41 -0.09

0.0101 -0.0391 -0.0134

3.73 -4.06 -2.07

0.0459 -0.1605 0.0196

21.46 -8.76 1.96
-0.1047 0.0644 -0.1082
-27.48 5.11 -12.61
S-10
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.088 0.455 0.299 0.093 0.449 0.299

0.090 0.498 0.289 0.093 0.475 0.283

0.087 0.437 0.270 0.098 0.415 0.270

0.106 0.448 0.249 0.111 0.451 0.261

0.085 0.609 0.367 0.093 0.577 0.350

0.113 0.543 0.288

0.098 0.509 0.284
Difference (mgd)
(%)

0.0051 -0.0054 0.0002

5.83 -1.20 0.08

0.0035 -0.0232 -0.0066

3.91 -4.65 -2.28

0.0108 -0.0220 0.0001

12.31 -5.04 0.05

0.0049 0.0024 0.0118

4.65 0.53 4.75

0.0079 -0.0324 -0.0170

9.23 -5.32 -4.63
-0.0156 -0.0336 -0.0042
-13.78 -6.18 -1.45
S-11
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.025 0.114 0.068 0.026 0.113 0.068

0.025 0.111 0.067 0.025 0.111 0.067

0.025 0.117 0.070 0.026 0.115 0.070

0.024 0.126 0.075 0.025 0.124 0.074

0.029 0.335 0.095 0.026 0.172 0.085

0.036 0.142 0.093

0.025 0.133 0.078
Difference (mgd)
(%)

0.0011 -0.0016 0.0001

4.46 -1.40 0.11

0.0000 -0.0006 -0.0001
-0.11 -0.58 -0.22

0.0010 -0.0025 0.0000

3.93 -2.16 -0.06

0.0010 -0.0024 -0.0002

4.21 -1.90 -0.26
-0.0025 -0.1626 -0.0105
-8.93 -48.54 -11.02
-0.0109 -0.0090 -0.0152
-30.12 -6.33 -16.37
S-12
Flow Monitored Model
(mgd) (mgd)

0.053 0.279 0.175 0.053 0.277 0.174

0.053 0.311 0.183 0.054 0.310 0.182

0.073 0.276 0.187 0.078 0.274 0.186

0.079 0.245 0.170 0.081 0.243 0.170

0.058 0.531 0.285 0.053 0.493 0.275

0.184 0.488 0.306

0.125 0.534 0.317
Difference (mgd)
(%)

0.0009 -0.0029 -0.0006

1.74 -1.03 -0.37

0.0009 -0.0009 -0.0008

1.78 -0.28 -0.45

0.0047 -0.0020 -0.0008

6.45 -0.73 -0.44

0.0022 -0.0020 -0.0008

2.81 -0.80 -0.46
-0.0046 -0.0376 -0.0098
-7.86 -7.09 -3.45
-0.0595 0.0452 0.0110
-32.33 9.26 3.58
9/22/2020
Excerpt from City of Monterey, Sewer Master Plan, prepared by Akel Engineering Group Sewer Flow Monitoring Results, Site S-8 is manhole D05-052 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 162, Packet Page 316

I I . I .1111 I 1l.1 - I h 0

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.8
1 1.2

1.4 1.6
Precip (in)
Date
Precipitation in Monterey, CA
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 163, Packet Page 317 Figureroa Box Culvert
February 26, 2014 to March 1, 2014
10-Minute Average
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Flow (gpm)

n
Aj ~ \ J\
/1 IV
\ ,\ \J ,\
'\_ - W\ .Ml \_
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7- 7- 7-
7~ 7~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ qa 7 7 qa qa 7 qa 7
~a ~a ~a V ~a V

V V V V V V
Date & Time
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 164, Packet Page 318

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Appendix E: References
California Department of Water Resources:

California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) website, www.cimis.water.gov
California State Water Resources Control Board
eWRIMS, Electronic Water Rights Information System (on-line database) Section 303(d) Listing of Impaired Water Bodies, 2020-22 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program, 2010.

Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin, 2019 Update City of Monterey, CA
Engineering Analysis, Development of Non-Potable Irrigation Water Systems, prepared by Fugro West, Inc., August 1999
Lake El Estero Water Quality Samples, BSK Analytical Laboratories, July 16, 2009.

Monterey Urban Watch Report, 2012, City of Monterey, CA, Coastal Watershed Council, the City of Monterey, and the Water Quality Protection Program of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Sewer Master Plan, prepared by Akel Engineering Group, 2022 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, Monterey County, CA and Incorporated Areas, FSI No. 06053CV001B, June 2017
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Final Management Plan, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, October 2008
Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program:
2010-2011 MRSWMP Monitoring Final Report, September 2011 Year 6 Annual Report, 2011-2012, January 2013
Monterey One Water (Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency):

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 165, Packet Page 319

Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Final Monterey Peninsula Stormwater Resource Plan, prepared by Geosyntec Consultants, July 2019
Member Agencies Projected Needs Inventory, prepared by EMC Planning Group, April 2013 Monterey Peninsula Groundwater Replenishment Project, Draft Source Water Alternatives Report, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, September 2013 NOAA Rainfall Records
Station USC00045795, MONTEREY CA US
Station USC00045802, MONTEREY NWSFO CA US
Station USW00023259, MONTEREY PENINSULA AIRPORT, CA US
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Technical Release 55, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, June 1986
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 166, Packet Page 320 Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Appendix F: Memoranda
Memorandum: Sea Level Rise analysis for the Lake El Estero Diversion Project ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 167, Packet Page 321

Schaaf & Wheeler Salinas, CA 93907 CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS t. 831-883-4848 f. 831-758-6328
[email protected]

MEMORANDUM
TO: Kevin Anderson, City of Monterey PW DATE: September 30, 2024 FROM: Andrew Sterbenz, PE and Arturo Jarvio, EIT JOB#: DD&A.09.22 SUBJECT: Sea Level Rise Analysis for the Lake El Estero Diversion The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the projected future sea levels and wave inundation heights for the Lake EL Estero Diversion Project. The project is located next to the City of Monterey’s Lake El Estero stormwater pump station at the northeast corner of the lake (Lat 36.599617 N, Long 121.884263 W), as shown on the aerial photo below. The project would divert winter stormwater from the lake into the sanitary sewer system as a source of supply for recycled water production. Lake levels are maintained for aesthetics and recreation, and excess stormwater inflows are pumped to a discharge point on Del Monte Beach.

Proposed
Diversion
Figure 1, Lake El Estero Diversion Location1
The existing stormwater pump station is a concrete structure constructed in 1968. The original design elevations are given in Figure A1, attached). The top deck of the pump station is at elevation 10-ft (+/-) on the NAVD 1988 datum. The lake is separated from the ocean by Del Monte Blvd and the coastal 1 Google Earth, Imagery date 4/12/2023
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 168, Packet Page 322

dunes along Del Monte Beach. The City’s storm water system map shows a gravity outlet at the northwest corner of the lake consisting of two 30-inch pipes, but the status of those pipes is unknown and assumed to be closed. The City relies on the pump station to remove excess stormwater from the lake.

The California Coastal Commission has adopted guidance for coastal planning with respect to sea level rise. The guidance document provides three levels of projected sea level changes over a 100-year planning period (years 2000 to 2100). The scenarios are classified as Low Risk Aversion (projected levels with a 17% chance of being exceeded), Medium-High Risk Aversion (levels with a 0.5% chance of being exceeded) and Extreme Risk Aversion (the maximum probable single occurrence). Projections are provided in 10-year time steps, as provided in Table 1, below.

Table 1, Monterey Bay Sea Level Rise Projections (in feet, relative to 2000 levels)2 Year
Low
Risk
Aversion
MediumHigh Risk
Aversion
Extreme
Risk
Aversion
2030 0.5 0.8 1.0
2040 0.8 1.2 1.7
2050 1.1 1.9 2.7
2060 1.4 2.6 3.8
2070 1.8 3.4 5.1
2080 2.3 4.4 6.6
2090 2.8 5.5 8.2
2100 3.3 6.9 10.1
Current tidal levels for the Monterey Bay were obtained from the NOAA website3 on the NAVD 1988 datum (see Figure 2). Future tidal ranges are then calculated by adding the projected sea level rise, as provided in Tables A1, A2 and A3 (attached). For context, the tides for 4/12/2023 were also obtained (the date of the image in Figure 1). The sea level in that image is from 0- to 2-ft on the NAVD 88 datum.

Table 2, below, provides the projected future mean high water (MHW) elevations for the Monterey Bay.

Lake El Estero is maintained between elevations 7- and 8-ft. Under the medium-high risk scenario, the MHW level will exceed the current lake level by the year 2070. Seawater could potentially back-feed into the lake through the gravity storm drain system, if the existing outlet is not disconnected as currently assumed. The existing outfall should already be equipped with a flap gate, and if not, one would be needed earlier than 2070 to prevent back-feeding from periodic higher high tides. 2 Excerpt from Table G-6 of the California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance 3 tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov, Station 9413450, Monterey, CA ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 169, Packet Page 323

for 9413450, Monterey, CA
All figures in feet relative to NAVD88
MHHW: 5.48
5 MHW: 4.7
4 DHQ: 0.7
DLQ: 1.1
PS
Figure 2, Monterey Bay Tide Data, NAVD 88
Table 2, Potential Mean High Water Elevations (ft, NAVD 88) Year
Low Risk
Aversion
MediumHigh Risk
Aversion
Extreme
Risk
Aversion
Current 4.78 4.78 4.78
2030 5.28 5.58 5.78
2040 5.58 5.98 6.48
2050 5.88 6.68 7.48
2060 6.18 7.38 8.58
2070 6.58 8.18 9.88
2080 7.08 9.18 11.38
2090 7.58 10.28 12.98
2100 8.08 11.68 14.88
The most recent FEMA Flood Insurance Study places the site in Zone AE with a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 11-ft, and adjacent to Zone VE along Del Monte Beach (see the attached FIRMette). The site is ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 170, Packet Page 324

at coastal transect 264, which has a Base Flood Elevation of 13.0-ft, a 1% Annual Chance Total Water Elevation of 13.4-ft, and a 0.2% Annual Chance Total Water Elevation of 14.1-ft. The total water elevation reflects the FEMA wave run-up analysis, not a standing water level. The 1% total water level is included in Tables A1, A2 and A3. The projected total water elevations for the site under all scenarios are presented in Table 3.

Table 3, Potential Wave Run-Up Elevations (ft, NAVD 88) Low Risk Aversion Medium-High Risk Aversion Extreme Risk Aversion FEMA Case
Year BFE
1%
Annual

0.2%
Annual BFE
1%
Annual

0.2%
Annual BFE
1%
Annual

0.2%
Annual
Current 13.0 13.4 14.1 13.0 13.4 14.1 13.0 13.4 14.1
2030 13.5 13.9 14.6 13.8 14.2 14.9 14.0 14.4 15.1
2040 13.8 14.2 14.9 14.2 14.6 15.3 14.7 15.1 15.8
2050 14.1 14.5 15.2 14.9 15.3 16.0 15.7 16.1 16.8
2060 14.4 14.8 15.5 15.6 16.0 16.7 16.8 17.2 17.9
2070 14.8 15.2 15.9 16.4 16.8 17.5 18.1 18.5 19.2
2080 15.3 15.7 16.4 17.4 17.8 18.5 19.6 20.0 20.7
2090 15.8 16.2 16.9 18.5 18.9 19.6 21.2 21.6 22.3
2100 16.3 16.7 17.4 19.9 20.3 21.0 23.1 23.5 24.2
Storm-driven waves are currently blocked by the dune along Del Monte Beach, which ranges from 14- to 16-ft in elevation. Pedestrian paths between the dunes are at 10- to 12-ft. Waves are projected to exceed the dune height under all three future scenarios. Water passing inland of the dune will cause flooding on Del Monte Blvd before reaching Lake El Estero.

For the purposes of the stormwater diversion study, we will disregard the effects of wave run-up. We assume that the dunes will be artificially raised at some point to protect Del Monte Blvd and the adjacent structures. The projected mean high water elevation is not projected to exceed the Zone AE base flood elevation of 11-ft for the next 50-years, so that elevation will be used for designing electrical equipment protection.
4 Elevations from FEMA FIS 06053V002B, Table 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 171, Packet Page 325

Attachments:

Table A1, Monterey Bay Levels, Low Risk Aversion
Table A2, Monterey Bay Levels, Medium-High Risk Aversion Table A3, Monterey Bay Levels, Extreme Risk Aversion
Monterey Bay Tide Gage 9413450, Tides for 4/12/2023 – 4/14/2023.

Figure A1, Lake El Estero Pump Station Elevations
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, Lake El Estero Vicinity References:

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), Central Coast Highway 1 Climate Resiliency Study Final Report, prepared by ESA , July 2020
California Coastal Commission, Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance, Final Adopted Science Update, November 7, 2018
City of Monterey
Plans for the Construction of Lake El Estero Flood Control project, As-Built version dated 6/17/1968
2016 City of Monterey Final Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses, Existing Conditions and Issues Report, prepared by Revell Coastal, LLC, 3/10/2016 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study Number 06053CV002B, Monterey County, California and Incorporated Areas, Version Number 2.3.2.1, Volume 2, revised June 21, 2017
NOAA Tide Gage Station 9413450, Monterey, CA
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 172, Packet Page 326

TM: Sea Level Rise Analysis for the Lake El Estero Diversion Table A1, Current and Projected Monterey Bay Levels, Low Risk Aversion Scenario Monterey Bay Levels Current 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 (feet, NAVD 88) SLR ---> 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.3 Storm Surge (FEMA FIS 2017) 13.40 13.90 14.20 14.50 14.80 15.20 15.70 16.20 16.70 Mean Higher High Water MHHW 5.45 5.95 6.25 6.55 6.85 7.25 7.75 8.25 8.75 Mean High Water MHW 4.78 5.28 5.58 5.88 6.18 6.58 7.08 7.58 8.08 Mean Sea Level MSL 2.97 3.47 3.77 4.07 4.37 4.77 5.27 5.77 6.27 Mean Low Water MLW 1.23 1.73 2.03 2.33 2.63 3.03 3.53 4.03 4.53 Mean Lower Low Water MLLW 0.14 0.64 0.94 1.24 1.54 1.94 2.44 2.94 3.44 Table A2, Current and Projected Monterey Bay Levels, Medium-High Risk Aversion Scenario Monterey Bay Levels Current 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 (feet, NAVD 88) SLR ---> 0.8 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.5 4.5 5.6 6.9 Storm Surge (FEMA FIS 2017) 13.40 14.20 14.70 15.30 16.00 16.90 17.90 19.00 20.30 Mean Higher High Water MHHW 5.45 6.25 6.75 7.35 8.05 8.95 9.95 11.05 12.35 Mean High Water MHW 4.78 5.58 6.08 6.68 7.38 8.28 9.28 10.38 11.68 Mean Sea Level MSL 2.97 3.77 4.27 4.87 5.57 6.47 7.47 8.57 9.87 Mean Low Water MLW 1.23 2.03 2.53 3.13 3.83 4.73 5.73 6.83 8.13 Mean Lower Low Water MLLW 0.14 0.94 1.44 2.04 2.74 3.64 4.64 5.74 7.04 Table A3, Current and Projected Monterey Bay Levels, Extreme Risk Aversion Scenario Monterey Bay Levels Current 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 (feet, NAVD 88) SLR ---> 1.0 1.7 2.7 3.8 5.1 6.6 8.2 10.1 Storm Surge (FEMA FIS 2017) 13.40 14.40 15.10 16.10 17.20 18.50 20.00 21.60 23.50 Mean Higher High Water MHHW 5.45 6.45 7.15 8.15 9.25 10.55 12.05 13.65 15.55 Mean High Water MHW 4.78 5.78 6.48 7.48 8.58 9.88 11.38 12.98 14.88 Mean Sea Level MSL 2.97 3.97 4.67 5.67 6.77 8.07 9.57 11.17 13.07 Mean Low Water MLW 1.23 2.23 2.93 3.93 5.03 6.33 7.83 9.43 11.33 Mean Lower Low Water MLLW 0.14 1.14 1.84 2.84 3.94 5.24 6.74 8.34 10.24 ElEstero_SLR.xlsx/SLR 9/26/2024
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 173, Packet Page 327 Home About Data and Products News Education and Outreach Meteorological Obs. (/met.html?id=9413450) Phys. Oceanography (/physocean.html?id=9413450) OFS (/ofs/ofs_station.html?stname=Monterey&ofs=wc&stnid=9413450&subdomain=sca) Options for
From:

Apr 12 2023
To:

Apr 14 2023
Units
Standard
Timezone

LST/LDT
Datum (datum_options.html)
NAVD
Shift dates
Interval
Update
Plot Data Only
Show Data Listing
(https://www.noaa.gov/) (/)
Home (/) / Products (products.html) / Water Levels (stations.html?type=Water+Levels) / 9413450 Monterey, CA Search
Favorite Stations
Station Info Tides/Water Levels Height in feet (NAVD)

NOAA/NOS/CO-OPS
Observed Water Levels at 9413450, Monterey CA
From 2023/04/12 00:00 LST/LDT to 2023/04/14 23:59 LST/LDT Predictions Verified Preliminary (Observed - Predicted) 00:00
4/12
06:00
4/12
12:00
4/12
18:00
4/12
00:00
4/13
06:00
4/13
12:00
4/13
18:00
4/13
00:00
4/14
06:00
4/14
12:00
4/14
18:00
4/14

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0
NOAA/NOS/Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Servi MHHW
MLLW
MLW
MHW

MSL MTL
NAVD
Datums
(NAVD)
9413450 Monterey Back 1 Day Forward 1 Day
1 hr

r
L v V
---.

TIDES&

CURR JTS
T r r r r
- Predictions - Verified - Preliminary - (Observed - Predicted) L_ v
C v
V
T [ p
MHHW ____ _
MHW

MSL MTL
MLW
r r r
T
NOAA is monitoring water levels and winds for Hurricane Helene (https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/inundationdb/cidstorm.html?stormname=Helene). Click to view real-time water level and meteorologica data.
×
6 min H/L
Day
Month
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 174, Packet Page 328

Show nearby stations
Products available at 9413450 Monterey, CA

TIDES/WATER LEVELS
Water Levels (/waterlevels.html?id=9413450)
NOAA Tide Predictions (/noaatidepredictions.html?id=9413450) Harmonic Constituents (/harcon.html?id=9413450)
Sea Level Trends (/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9413450) Datums (/datums.html?id=9413450)
Bench Mark Sheets (/benchmarks.html?id=9413450)
Extreme Water Levels (/est/est_station.shtml?stnid=9413450) Reports (/reports.html?id=9413450)

METEOROLOGICAL/OTHER
Meteorological Observations (/met.html?id=9413450)
Water Temp/Conductivity
® PORTS
® This station is not a member of PORTS

OPERATIONAL FORECAST SYSTEMS
West Coast (/ofs/wcofs/wcofs.html)
OFS product page for Monterey (/ofs/ofs_station.html?
stname=Monterey&ofs=wc&stnid=9413450&subdomain=sca)

INFORMATION
Station Home Page (/stationhome.html?id=9413450)
Data Inventory (/inventory.html?id=9413450)
Measurement Specifications (/measure.html)
Website Owner: Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.noaa.gov) • National Ocean Service (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov) • Privacy Policy (/privacy.html) • Disclaimer (/disclaimers.html) • Take Our Survey (/survey.html) • Freedom of Information Act (https://www.noaa.gov/foia-freedom-of-information-act) • Contact Us (/contact.html)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 175, Packet Page 329

LONGITUDINAL SECTION ED
Kevin Anderson, City of Monterey September 30, 2024
Figure A1. El Estero Pump Station Elevations
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 176, Packet Page 330 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette i}FEMA Legend
121 °53'27"W 36°36'6"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zona A, V. A99
With BFE or DepthZoneAr. AO. AH, VE. AR SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone x
Future Conditions 1% Annual
lliil._.,... Chance Flood Hazard zonex
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone x OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone o
NOSCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
c::::::::J Effective LOMRs
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o
GENERAL Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES I 1 1 I I I I Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
WaterSurface Elevation
a - - - Coastal Transect
- 111- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
= Limit of Study
--- Jurisdiction Boundary
--- --- Coastal Transect Baseline
OTHER Profile Baseline
FEATURES Hydrographic Feature
L Digital Data Available N
No Digital Data Available
MAP PANELS Unmapped
The pin displayed on the map Is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
9 +
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if It is not void as described below.

The base map shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The f lood hazard information Is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 10/ 7/ 2022 at 2:19 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to thisdate and time. The NFHL and effective Information may change or
become superseded by new data over t ime.

This map Image Is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear. basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community Identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for Feet unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 177, Packet Page 331 Appendix C – City of Monterey Detention Basin Management Project Biological Resource Report and Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 178, Packet Page 332

DETENTION BASIN MAINTENANCE PROJECT

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT
JUNE 5, 2017
PREPARED BY:

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Contact: Josh Harwayne
947 Cass St. Suite 5
Monterey, California 93940
PREPARED FOR:

City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street, Room 7
Monterey California, 93940
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 179, Packet Page 333

Detention Basin Maintenance Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Summary of Results ...............................................................................................................................1 Project Description................................................................................................................................. 1 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Personnel and Survey Dates................................................................................................................... 9 Special-Status Species............................................................................................................................9 Sensitive Habitats................................................................................................................................. 10 Data Sources......................................................................................................................................... 10 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................................................11 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Lake El Estero ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Washerwoman’s Pond..........................................................................................................................13 Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin ......................................................................................................... 16 Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin ......................................................................................................... 16 Harris Detention Basin .........................................................................................................................19 Wilson Detention Basin........................................................................................................................ 19 SENSITIVE HABITATS............................................................................................................................22 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ................................................................................................................... 22 Special-Status Wildlife Species............................................................................................................ 22 Special-Status Plant Species................................................................................................................. 26 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION................................................................................................................. 27 Sensitive Habitats................................................................................................................................. 27 Special-Status Wildlife Species............................................................................................................ 28 Special-Status Plant Species................................................................................................................. 31 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX A: CURRENT EARTHWORK EXHIBITS FOR THE PROJECT SITES APPENDIX B: PLANS FOR INSTALLATION OF COFFERDAMS AT LAKE EL ESTERO APPENDIX C: SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES TABLE
APPENDIX D: WETLAND DELINEATION
APPENDIX E: DD&A 2016 WILDLIFE SURVEY REPORT
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. i Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 180, Packet Page 334

Detention Basin Maintenance Project

FIGURES
FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2. PROJECT SITE MAP ............................................................................................................... 3 FIGURE 3. RYAN RANCH PROJECT SITES ...........................................................................................4 FIGURE 4. DOWNTOWN MONTEREY PROJECT SITES ...................................................................... 6 FIGURE 5. LAKE EL ESTERO – AREAS OF EMERGENT VEGETATION TO BE PRESERVED...... 8 FIGURE 6. LAKE EL ESTERO HABITAT MAP .................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 7. WASHERWOMAN’S POND HABITAT MAP..................................................................... 15 FIGURE 8. LAGUNITA MIRADA SEDIMENT BASIN HABITAT MAP ............................................. 17 FIGURE 9. LOWER RAGSDALE DETENTION BASIN HABITAT MAP............................................ 18 FIGURE 10. HARRIS DETENTION BASIN HABITAT MAP................................................................20 FIGURE 11. WILSON DETENTION HABITAT MAP............................................................................ 21 TABLES
Table 1: Approximate acreage of wetlands mapped at each project site and approximate acreage of wetlands impacted by the proposed project in year 1. ................................................................................................................28 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. ii Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 181, Packet Page 335

Detention Basin Maintenance Project

INTRODUCTION
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A) was contracted by the City of Monterey (City) to prepare a Biological Resources Report for the Detention Basin Management Project (proposed project), located within Monterey, California (Figure 1). The City is proposing maintenance activities for six man-made stormwater detention basins (detention basins or project sites) located within the City of Monterey (Figure 2). The emphasis of this study is to describe existing biological resources within and surrounding the project sites, identify any special-status species and sensitive habitats within the project sites, assess potential impacts that may occur to biological resources, and recommend appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures necessary to reduce/avoid those impacts.

Summary of Results
A number of special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur at some or all of the project sites.

Nesting raptors and other migratory birds, protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code, may nest within trees located within or immediately adjacent to the project sites. The proposed project will not result in the removal of any trees. The California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense, CTS), listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Federal Endangered Species Acts (ESA), has the potential to occur at the Harris and Lower Ragsdale project sites. The California red-legged frog (Rana Draytonii, CRLF), listed under ESA, and the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), a candidate for listing under the CESA, both have the potential to occur at all of the project sites. However, protocol surveys conducted for CRLF and tricolored blackbird in 2016 at the project sites resulted in negative findings. Additional special-status wildlife species including the Monterey dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes luciana) and the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum), have the potential to occur at a number of the project sites. A number of special-status plant species have the potential to occur at some or all of the project sites. Protocol level surveys for special-status plant species are underway at the project sites. It was identified that three focused botanical surveys would be required to cover the appropriate blooming period of the specialstatus plant species that were identified as having the potential to occur at the project sites. At this time two of the three botanical surveys have been completed and the final survey is scheduled for summer 2017. Any special-status plant species found during the botanical surveys will be avoided. Potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. are present at all of the project sites. Impacts to wetlands as a result of the proposed project will be temporary as sediment will continue to enter the project sites in-between dredging events, resulting in the formation of new wetlands, replacing those that have been removed via maintenance activities. Mitigation measures are included to reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Project Description
The proposed project includes maintenance activities for six detention basins (project sites) located in the City of Monterey: Lake El Estero1
, Washerwoman’s Pond, Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin, Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin (Lower Ragsdale), Harris Detention Basin (Harris), and Wilson Detention Basin (Wilson) (Figure 2). The six detention basins identified as part of the proposed project capture and store stormwater runoff from surrounding areas. The capacity and function of these detention basins have been reduced by the presence of emergent vegetation and the accumulation of sediment. Additionally, some of the detention basins have associated infrastructure that requires upkeep and occasional repairs to function as intended. The proposed project involves management and maintenance activities by the City 1 Lake El Estero is not strictly a detention basin as it has additional function and value in regard to recreation and esthetics.

However, for the purposes of this document, it is included as one of six basins within the City that require maintenance because they retain sediment and associated vegetation over time.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 1 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 182, Packet Page 336

Ao . ro,
n,h ul
untr Club
Del onte
For st
§ "'
.. a
p..-
1tCIIJb H
CJ
Pebbl
Beach
Fresno 0
~ .. .,,
Q 91,
.. Pacific ..e Grove
Carmel -bythe-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Fort Ord
N 1o,n I
l,bnument
1111 a
Mun t I
Aui:,,11
rt Old
N tonal
lvlonu n1
un
e
f
u

7. tl. b
i,,£ ~ \\I CtJ ~ .,,,, ., a,-c;
N
A
Downtown Monterey
Project Sites
Ryan Ranch
Project Sites
0 1 2 Miles
0 2 4 Kilometers
on 20160415.mxd
Title:

Detention Basin Management Project
Location Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 1.97 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
1 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat Assessment\Figure 1 - 8x11 Locati ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 183, Packet Page 337

I I
Title:

Detention Basin Management Project
Project Site Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.46 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
2 Washerwoman's
Pond
Lagunita
Mirada
Harris
Wilson
Lake El
Estero
Lower
Ragsdale

0.25 0.5 Miles

0.5 Kilometers
Project Sites
0 0 1
Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat Assessment\Figure 2 - 8x11 Project Sites 20160415.mxd ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 184, Packet Page 338

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
that would allow the intended function and capacity of these detention basins to be restored and maintained over a period of 15 years.

The Lower Ragsdale, Harris, and Wilson sites are located in the Ryan Ranch development (Figure 3).

Improvement plans for the Ryan Ranch Industrial Park from 1982 show the designed depths for these basins. Lake El Estero, Washerwoman’s Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin project sites are located in the downtown area of the City of Monterey (Figure 4). Plans were prepared and executed in 1984 as part of the El Estero Lake Restoration Project, indicating their designed depths. Earthwork exhibits recently prepared by the City show the current depths within the detention basins (Appendix A).2 The proposed project activities include dredging of all of the basins except Lake El Estero to restore their design depths. Washerwoman's Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin would be drained for maintenance activities, to work at the pipe inlets and the outlet head-walls. Proposed maintenance activities at all of the basins would include: vegetation management/removal; trash removal; and inspection and repair of infrastructure as needed.3 In addition, installation of specific erosion control structures are proposed at Lake El Estero as described below. Sediment, trash, and green waste generated by the proposed project would be disposed of properly at the Marina Dump. Project activities are discussed in more detail in the text below.

Sediment Removal
Sediment removal would consist of a few different approaches and equipment types. Where access is available, sediment shall be removed by an excavator or drag bucket from the bank of the detention basin.

Alternatively, detention basins may be dredged by floating equipment. For the majority of the basins the dredging would occur with water in the pond. However, for the initial work in year 1, Washerwoman's Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin will be drained prior to the dredging, and then graded with heavy equipment to match the original design depths. Draining of the two detention basins referenced above for sediment removal purposes will occur only once, in year 1. All dredged materials shall be hauled off-site and deposited at the Marina Dump.

Vegetation Management
Vegetation management shall include removal of emergent vegetation within the detention basins.

Vegetation shall be removed with a combination of hand equipment, when necessary around and adjacent to sensitive infrastructure, and heavy equipment such as a backhoe. As the vast majority of the emergent vegetation within the detention basins is rooted in accumulated sediment, the vast majority of the vegetation removal will occur concurrently with the sediment removal as described above and will be a byproduct of that activity. Vegetation removal in the first year (year 1) will include removal of 50% of the vegetation at all of the detention basins except Washerwoman’s Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin; these two detention basins will be drained and regraded in the first year, resulting in the removal of all of the existing wetland vegetation at those two project sites. In subsequent years, only 50% of the vegetation would be removed every two years at all of the detention basins. Additional trimming and mowing shall occur in adjacent uplands when the basins are in park or urban settings. All vegetation removed will be hauled off site and disposed of at the Marina Landfill. 2 Lake El Estero is not included in Appendix A because no dredging is being proposed at that location. 3 The water surface elevation at Washerwoman’s Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin may be lowered or drained on occasion to facilitate the proposed project activities, including the inspection and repair of infrastructure.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 4 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 185, Packet Page 339

PWflo Gr0te j Seaside
•• ,~...,EJ
Harris
Wilson
Lower
Ragsdale
Harris Ct
Lower Ragsdale Dr
York Rd
Wilson Rd
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Proj
68 Project Sites
tes 20170310.mxd
250 500 ft
100 200
t Si
0 0 m
Title:

Detention Basin Management Project
Ryan Ranch Project Sites
Date: March 10, 2017
Scale: 1 inch = 0.13 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
3 ects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat Assessment\Figure 3 - 8x11 Ryan Ranch Projec ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 186, Packet Page 340 Fremont St
Pearl St
Del Monte Ave
Via Mirada
Aguajito Rd
1 Washerwoman's
Pond
Lagunita
Mirada
Lake El
Estero

Project Sites
0 250 500 ft Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 100 200 m Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Proj t Sites 20160415.mxd
Title:

Detention Basin Management Project
Downtown Area Project Sites
Date:

Scale: 1
Project:

March 10, 2017
inch = 0.11 miles
2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
4 ects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat Assessment\Figure 4 - 8x11 Downtown Area Projec ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 187, Packet Page 341

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Lake El Estero
The Lake El Estero project site is located in the City of Monterey in an area between Del Monte Avenue and Fremont Street (Figure 4). Lake El Estero is the largest project site, at approximately 19.5 acres, and holds water year round. Maintenance activities at Lake El Estero differ from the other proposed project sites. Annual maintenance at Lake El Estero would consist of the following activities:
 Removal of emergent vegetation4
 Management of erosion as needed along the eastern shore of the east finger through the installation of gabion cages (less than 200 feet per year)  Trash removal and maintenance of vegetation in upland areas around the lake  Any necessary repairs to aeration system (e.g. replacing broken sections)  Dropping the elevation of the lake 3 to 4 feet in preparation of large storm events  Dropping the elevation of the lake 3 to 4 feet, as needed, to conduct maintenance on utilities that run under the Pearl Street bridges and to work on any of the inlets that come into the lake, the lake edge walls, or gabion cages
 Inspection of existing infrastructure and conducting repairs as necessary  Inspection of existing areas of rock wall around the perimeter of the lake and repairing/replacing as necessary
During the first year of maintenance activities vegetation removal would occur to unblock stormwater drainage inlets. Consistent with the 1984 El Estero Lake Restoration Plans, the City would preserve two large areas (approximately 0.36 acres) of emergent vegetation, one patch in the west lake near the playground and another on the western bank of the east finger (Figure 5). In years following the initial maintenance activities, emergent vegetation removal would consist of maintaining these preserved areas of emergent vegetation. Emergent vegetation outside of the preserved areas would be removed from Lake El Estero using a barge-mounted backhoe attachment and a standard backhoe operated from the shore as needed. Trash removal and maintenance of vegetation in upland areas around the lake would occur throughout the year, on a weekly basis.

Erosion can be an issue along portions of the perimeter of the lake and maintenance activities would include addressing/managing erosion as needed. Management of erosion along the east side of the east finger of the lake would consist of extending existing areas of gabion cages along the bank at a rate of approximately less than 200 hundred feet per year. Installation of these cages would involve removing emergent vegetation that may be present within the installation area and creating a shelf in the soil on which the gabion cage would sit. The gabion cage would be entirely submerged, and not visible above the water surface. The gabion cages would be installed on an as-needed basis and only if significant erosion was identified. Additional erosion management activities would include maintaining existing areas of rock wall. Maintenance of the rock wall would consist of repairing or, if necessary, replacing sections as needed to maintain the intended function of the wall. Additional activities include inspection and maintenance of utilities that run under the Pearl Street bridges and inlets to the lake. Materials removed as part of these maintenance activities would be stockpiled off-site and then disposed of at a landfill or other appropriate off-site location. The surface elevation of the lake would be reduced, as needed, by no more than four feet to enable the maintenance activities described above.

Dropping the water surface level in the lake would occur prior to large rain events. The number of times the lake level would be dropped in preparation of a large rain event will vary between years. A number of 4 A minimum of approximately 0.36 acres of emergent vegetation will be maintained within Lake El Estero for the duration of the proposed project.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 7 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 188, Packet Page 342 Park
3rd
Webster
2nd
8th
Alma
1st
Del Monte
Via
Mirada
Cortes
Camino El Estero
Camino Aguajito
Fremont
Fishnet
Figueroa
Mesa
Robinson
Ocean
7th
4th
Tau
Pearl
Lake
Anthony
6th
5th
Perry
Church
Fremont
n

Franklin
Fra
n
kli
fner

Lake El Estero Project Site
Areas of Emergent Vegetation to be
Preserved (Approx. 0.36 acres)
0 250 500 ft
0 100 200 m
Title: Lake El Estero Detention Basin
Areas of Emergent Vegetation
to be Preserved
Date: March 29, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.06 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
5 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat Assessment\Figure 5 - 8x11 Lake El Estero 20160415.mxd ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 189, Packet Page 343

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
factors including intensity of rainfall events, timing of rainfall events, and the condition of soils prior to the rain event (i.e. saturation level), would affect the number of times the water level would need to be dropped each year.

Inspections and repairs of the pump inlet and gravity inlet located in the forebay of Lake El Estero would also occur as part of the proposed project. As the pump inlet and the inlet to the gravity line are submerged, the inspection and repairs of these inlets would be completed using a cofferdam.5 The cofferdam allows for a dry area in which the inspection and any necessary repairs could occur. The dewatering would occur twice, once to conduct the inspection and then once to conduct the repairs, as the cofferdam would be allowed to refill with water while materials for the repairs are being fabricated. Gravel to a depth of two feet would be placed on the bottom of the dry side of the cofferdam. Once the water has been dropped by the initial dewatering, the dry side of the cofferdam would be maintained by a sump pump that would pump out the water collecting in the gravel. It is estimated that repairs would take approximately a week to complete once the materials were available. During repairs, the dry side would be maintained by the sump pump running continuously. For both the initial dewatering and the water removed by the sump pump the water would be pumped into a sanitary sewer line by way of a manhole located in a parking lot area, approximately 40-feet from the Lake El Estero pump structure. Each initial dewatering event would divert approximately 35,900 gallons of water. Operation of the sump pump at approximately 3 gallons/minute for a week (the expected duration of the repairs) would result in the diversion of approximately 30,000 gallons of water. As the pump inlet and inlet to the gravity line are located in different sections of the forebay, the cofferdam would be installed within the lake at each location no more than once every five years. All non-native materials temporarily placed on the dry side of the cofferdam would be removed prior to the removal of the cofferdam.

METHODS
Personnel and Survey Dates
Reconnaissance-level biological surveys were conducted at the project sites in January through May of 2016 by DD&A Environmental Scientists. Survey methods included walking the survey area and using aerial maps and GPS to identify general habitat types, potential sensitive habitats, and appropriate habitat for specialstatus species. Available reference materials were reviewed prior to conducting the field survey, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (DFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrence reports (DFW, 2017), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species that May Occur in Monterey County (USFWS, 2015), and aerial photographs of the project site (see “Data Sources” below). Data collected during the surveys was used to assess the environmental conditions of the project site and its surroundings, evaluate environmental constraints at the site and within the local vicinity, and provide a basis for recommendations to minimize and avoid impacts.

Special-Status Species
Special-status species are those plants and animals that have been formally listed or proposed for listing as Endangered or Threatened, or are Candidates for such listing under ESA or CESA. Listed species are afforded legal protection under the ESA and CESA. Species that meet the definition of Rare or Endangered under the CEQA Section 15380 are also considered special-status species. State species of special concern meet this definition and are typically provided management consideration through the CEQA process, although they are not legally protected under the ESA or CESA. Additionally, the DFW also includes some animal species that are not assigned any of the other status designations in the CNDDB “Special Animals” list. The DFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need, regardless of their legal or protection status.
5 Please see Appendix B for plans illustrating the installation of the cofferdams.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 9 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 190, Packet Page 344

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) or on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) lists are also treated as special-status species. In general, the DFW considers plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 (CRPR 1A [Plants Presumed Extirpated in California] and CRPR 1B [Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere]), or CRPR 2 (CRPR 2A [Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But Common Elsewhere] and CRPR 2B [Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere]) of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2017) as qualifying for legal protection under this CEQA provision. In addition, species of vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens listed as having special-status by the DFW are considered special-status plant species (DFW, 2017).

Raptors (e.g., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected under both federal and state laws and regulations. The MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Section 3513 prohibit killing, possessing, or trading migratory birds except in accordance with regulation prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

Birds of prey are protected in California under Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” In addition, fully protected species under the Fish and Game Code Section 3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), Section 5515 (fish), and Section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians) are also considered special-status animal species. Species with no formal special-status designation but thought by experts to be rare or in serious decline are also considered special-status animal species (DFW, 2017).

Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive habitats include riparian corridors, wetlands, habitats for legally protected species, areas of high biological diversity, areas supporting rare or special-status wildlife habitat, and unusual or regionally restricted habitat types. Habitat types considered sensitive include those listed on the CNDDB’s working list of high priority and rare natural communities (i.e., those habitats that are rare or endangered within the borders of California) (DFW, 2010), those that are occupied by species listed under the ESA or are critical habitat in accordance with ESA. Sensitive habitats also include those that are defined as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act. Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in City or County General Plans or ordinances. Sensitive habitats are regulated under federal regulations (such as the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands), state regulations (such as the CEQA and the DFW Streambed Alteration Program), or local ordinances or policies (such as City or County tree ordinances, Habitat Management Plan [HMP] areas, and General Plan elements).

Data Sources
The primary literature and data sources reviewed in order to determine the occurrence or potential for occurrence of special-status species at the project site are as follows: current agency status information from the USFWS and DFW for species Listed, proposed for listing, or Candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered under ESA or CESA, and those considered DFW “species of special concern” (2017); the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2015) and CNDDB occurrence reports (DFW, 2017). The Monterey and Seaside United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles and the six surrounding USGS quadrangles (Carmel Valley, Marina, Mt. Carmel, Salinas, Soberanes Point, and Spreckles) from the CNDDB were also reviewed for documented special-status species occurrences in the vicinity of the project site.

From these resources, a list of special-status plant and wildlife species known or with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project was created (Appendix C). The list presents these species along with their legal status, habitat requirements, and a brief statement of the likelihood to occur.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 10 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 191, Packet Page 345

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Botany
The generalized vegetation classification schemes for California described by Holland (1986) and Sawyer et al. (2009) were consulted in classifying the vegetation of the project site. The final classification and characterization of the vegetation of the project site is based on field observations and the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (or Natural Communities List) (Sawyer et al., 2009). Although this list replaces all other lists of terrestrial natural communities and vegetation types developed for the CNDDB, the more commonly used terrestrial communities derived from Holland are used in this report for ease of reference.

Information regarding the distribution and habitats of local and State vascular plants was also reviewed (Howitt and Howell, 1964 and 1973; Munz and Keck, 1973; Hickman, 1993; Matthews and Mitchell, 2015; Jepson Flora Project, 2011). Scientific nomenclature for plants in this report follows Hickman (1993) and common names follow Matthews and Mitchell (2015).

Wildlife
The following literature and data sources were reviewed: DFW reports on special-status wildlife (Remsen, 1978; Williams, 1986; Jennings and Hayes, 1994; Thelander, 1994); California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program species-habitat models (DFW, 2008; Zeiner et al., 1988; and Zeiner et al., 1990); and general wildlife references (Stebbins, 1985).

Regulatory Setting
The following regulatory discussion describes the major laws that may be applicable to the Detention Basin Management Project.

Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
Provisions of the ESA of 1973 (16 USC 1532 et seq., as amended) protect federally Listed Threatened or Endangered species and their habitats from unlawful take. Listed species include those for which proposed and final rules have been published in the Federal Register. The ESA is administered by the USFWS or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). In general, NOAA Fisheries is responsible for the protection of ESA-Listed marine species and anadromous fish, whereas other listed species are under USFWS jurisdiction.

Section 9 of ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed under ESA as Endangered. Take, as defined by ESA, is “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Harm is defined as “any act that kills or injures the species, including significant habitat modification.” In addition, Section 9 prohibits removing, digging up, and maliciously damaging or destroying federally listed plants on sites under federal jurisdiction. Section 9 does not prohibit take of federally listed plants on sites not under federal jurisdiction. If there is the potential for incidental take of a federally Listed fish or wildlife species, take of Listed species can be authorized through either the Section 7 consultation process for federal actions or a Section 10 incidental take permit process for nonfederal actions. Federal agency actions include activities that are on federal land, conducted by a federal agency, funded by a federal agency, or authorized by a federal agency (including issuance of federal permits).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA of 1918 prohibits killing, possessing, or trading migratory birds except in accordance with regulation prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Most actions that result in taking or in permanent or temporary possession of a protected species constitute violations of the MBTA. The USFWS is responsible for overseeing compliance with the MBTA.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 11 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 192, Packet Page 346

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA was enacted in 1970 and was modeled after the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

CEQA encourages the protection of all aspects of the environment, requiring State and local agencies to prepare multi-disciplinary environmental impact analyses and make decisions based on those studies’ findings regarding the environmental effects of the proposed action. CEQA applies to all discretionary activities proposed to be carried out or approved by California public agencies, including State, regional, county, and local agencies, unless an exemption applies. CEQA also applies to private activities that require discretionary government approvals.

California Endangered Species Act
The CESA was enacted in 1984. The California Code of Regulations (Title 14, §670.5) lists animal species considered Endangered or Threatened by the State. Section 2090 of CESA requires State agencies to comply with endangered species protection and recovery and to promote conservation of these species. Section 2080 of California Fish and Game Code prohibits "take" of any species that the commission determines to be an Endangered species or a Threatened species. “Take” is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." It does not include habitat destruction in the definition of take. A Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit from the DFW may be obtained to authorize “take” of any State Listed species.

California Fish and Game Code
Birds: Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the killing, possession, or destruction of bird eggs or bird nests. Section 3503.5 and 3513 prohibit the killing, possession, or destruction of all nesting birds (including raptors and passerines). Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame birds designated under the federal MBTA. Section 3800 prohibits take of nongame birds.

Species of Special Concern: As noted above, the DFW also maintains a list of animal “species of special concern.” Although these species have no legal status, the DFW recommends considering these species during analysis of project impacts to protect declining populations and avoid the need to list them as Endangered in the future.

Native Plant Protection Act
The CNPPA of 1977 directed the DFW to carry out the legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and Endangered plants in the State.” The CNPPA prohibits importing rare and Endangered plants into California, taking rare and Endangered plants, and selling rare and Endangered plants. The CESA and CNPPA authorized the DFW Commission to designate endangered, threatened and rare species and to regulate the taking of these species (§2050-2098, California Fish and Game Code). Plants listed as rare under the CNPPA are not protected under CESA.

Local Regulations
Monterey County Code
Title 16, Chapter 16.60, Monterey County Code, provides for the preservation of oaks and other protected tree species within the unincorporated areas of the County. As defined in Chapter 16.60.040 C, removal of more than three protected trees on a lot in a one-year period requires a Forest Management Plan (FMP) and approval of a Use Permit by the Monterey County Planning Commission. The FMP must be prepared by a qualified forester selected from the County's list of consultants. Chapter 16.060.040 D requires that the applicant relocate or replace each removed tree on a one-to-one ratio. This ratio may be varied upon showing Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 12 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 193, Packet Page 347

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
that such a requirement will create a special hardship in the use of the site or such a replacement would be detrimental to the long-term health and maintenance of the remaining habitat.

RESULTS
The project sites Lake El Estero, Washerwoman’s Pond, and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin are located in the downtown area of the City of Monterey. These project sites are surrounded by urban development. The elevation at these project site ranges from 6 to 15 feet above sea level. The project sites Lower Ragsdale, Harris, and Wilson are located in the Ryan Ranch development area. Habitats adjacent to these project sites include non-native grassland, oak woodland, oak savanna, and developed. None of the project sites occur within the Coastal Zone. The following discussion describes the habitat types observed within the evaluation area for each basin.

Lake El Estero
Lake El Estero is located in El Estero Park, in the City of Monterey. The upland area consists of maintained park that includes some development. The edge of the lake is well defined and includes some emergent vegetation (please refer to Appendix D for additional information). Wetland habitat present at the site consists of emergent vegetation on the fringe of the open water habitat at the toe of the steep banks of the lake. Emergent vegetation present at the site includes California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). Wildlife observed during field visits included, mallards, herons, raccoons (Procyon sp.), fish, and bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus).

Approximately 1.2 acres of wetland habitat is present at Lake El Estero (Figure 6). Additionally, approximately 0.6 acres of developed area consisting of roads and building not associated with the park setting, and approximately 2.3 acres of maintained park/developed habitat occurs within the assessment area.

A small vegetated island, present in the middle of Lake El Estero, was excluded from the biological assessment area as no proposed project activities would occur on the island; however, the island does provide potential nesting habitat for avian species.

Washerwoman’s Pond
Washerwoman’s Pond is a silt pond for Lake El Estero. The water level in Washerwoman’s Pond is controlled by a gate valve. Washerwoman’s Pond is in an urban setting and is largely surrounded by paved roads. The upland portion of the site consists of disturbed/planted habitat between the pond and adjacent roads. The pond boundary is well defined with steep banks. Wetland habitat is present along the fringe of the basin at the toe of the bank. Dominant plant species present within the wetland area include California bulrush, common rush (Juncus effusus), horsetail (Equisetum sp.), willows (Salix sp.), smartweed (Persicaria sp.), dock (Rumex sp.), and cut-leaved water parsnip (Berula erecta). Aquatic habitat is also present at this site.

Non-native weed species are the dominant vegetation in the disturbed/planted habitat. Species present in this habitat include soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), French broom (Genista monspessulana), barley (Hordeum marinum), cut-leaved plantain (Plantago coronopus), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), rattail sixweeks grass (Festuca myuros), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis per-caprae), sweet-clover (Melilotus sp.), bur-clover (Medicago sp.), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). Some native species are present, including dock, California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa).

Approximately 0.3 acres of wetland habitat is present at Washerwoman’s Pond (Figure 7). Additionally, approximately 1 acres of disturbed/planted habitat occurs in the assessment area.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 13 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 194, Packet Page 348 Del Monte Ave
St
7th
St
10th
St
Perry
Ln
6th
St
4th St
3rd St
Webster
St
5th St
Ta
2nd St
Iris
Canyon Rd
Mesa Rd
Corte
Robinson St
1st St
Camino
Ag
uajito
Lake St
Via Mirada Rd
E Pearl St
Fishnet Rd
Anthony St
Camino El Estero
Fremont St
Pearl St

ufner
Ln
Franklin
s St
E Franklin St

-
-
-
-
_ .,..._. a ,Seaside c,
MliiJte" y Del Rey
jJ.
2 A'lo'>~
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, Assessment Area USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Habitats
Aquatic
Developed
Maintained Park/Developed
Wetland
0 150 300 ft
0 50 100 m
Title: Mont | San Jose l Fi erey
Date: Apri 15, 2016
6 gure Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. Lake El Estero Scale: 1 inch = 0.05 miles Environmental Consultants Resource Planners Habitat Map 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 373-4341
Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat Maps\Figure 6 - 8x11 Portrait Lake El Estero 20160415.mxd Project: 2013-65 760
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 195, Packet Page 349 P
ark
Ave
Fremont St
Assessment Area
Habitat
Aquatic
Disturbed/Planted
Wetland
0 75 150 ft
0 25 50 m
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Maps\Figure 7 - 8x11 Washerwoman s Pond 20160415.mxd
Title:

Washerwoman's Pond
Habitat Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.02 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
'
Figure
7 Glenwood Cir
Via Lavandera
10th St
Camino Aguajito
Costanoan Dr

D
-
I I
Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 196, Packet Page 350

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin
Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin is a maintained open water pond in an urban setting, adjacent to the Monterey Museum of Art and paved roads. The upland area that surrounds the detention basin area consists of a maintained park habitat with a path. Non-native or horticultural species are dominant in this habitat type. Species present in the maintained park habitat include, pride of Madera (Echium sp.), greater periwinkle (Vinca major), scarlet pimpernel (Lysimachia arvensis), ripgut grass, bur-clover, rattail sixweeks grass, french broom, hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), dock, plectritis (Plectritis sp.), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), and english ivy (Hedera helix). Developed habitat present within the site includes a section of sidewalk, street curb, and a section a trail that goes through the park area.

At Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin, the detention basin is well defined with steep banks in most places.

A small fringe of wetland habitat is present along the edge of the basin at the toe of the bank. The wetland habitat is approximately six inches wide, but expands where the slope is less steep between the upland and the pond, and where emergent vegetation occurs. The vegetation present within the wetland area includes large patches of yellow flag iris and cattails (Typha sp.). Alder trees (Alnus sp.), willows, and cottonwoods (Populus sp.) are also present along the edges of the detention basin. Wildlife observed during the field visit included fish and a green heron (Butorides virescens).

Approximately 0.3 acres of wetland habitat are present at Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin (Figure 8).

Additionally, approximately 0.8 acres of maintained park habitat and 0.1 acres of developed habitat occur within the assessment area.

Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin
The evaluation area at the Lower Ragsdale detention basin consists of a silt basin and adjacent upland area. The Lower Ragsdale project site is located between Lower Ragsdale Rd. and Highway 68 in Ryan Ranch. The upland area that surrounds the project site consists of an oak savanna with a non-native grass understory. Plant species present in the upland area of the project site includes non-native upland grasses, Italian thistle, dove’s foot geranium (Geranium molle), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), burclover, poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and cut-leaved plantain (Plantago coronopus). Developed habitat present within the project site includes a cement wall with a rock face that separates the silt basin from a basin located downstream of the project site.

Vegetation present within the silt basin includes pale spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), tall cyperus (Cyperus eragrostis), dock, and spreading rush (Juncus patens). Tree frogs and birds were observed in and around the project site. A small portion of a channel that conveys water from Lower Ragsdale Road to the silt basin is included in the project site.

Approximately 0.2 acres of wetland habitat is present at the Lower Ragsdale project site (Figure 9).

Additionally, approximately 0.4 acres of oak savanna, less than 0.01 acres of developed habitat, and less than 0.01 acres of additional aquatic habitat are present within the assessment area.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 16 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 197, Packet Page 351 Iris Canyon Rd
Fremont St
Fremont St
Via Mirada Rd
Fishnet Rd

Mesa Rd

D
-
-
-
I ==_le I I
Assessment Area
Habitat
Aquatic
Developed
Maintained Park
Wetland
0 50 100 ft
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 15 30 m Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Proj t Maps\Figure 8 - 8x11 Lagunita Mirada 20160415.mxd Title:

Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin
Habitat Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.01 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
8 ects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habita ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 198, Packet Page 352 Lower Ragsdale Dr

D
-
-
-
-
Assessment Area
Habitat
Aquatic
Developed
Oak Savanna
Wetland
Highway 68
0 75 150 ft
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © 0 25 50 m OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Maps\Figure 9 - 8x11 Lower Ragsdale 20170403.mxd
Title:

Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin
Habitat Map
Date: April 3, 2017
Scale: 1 inch = 0.02 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
9 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 199, Packet Page 353

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Harris Detention Basin
The Harris project site was dug in an upland area. The Harris detention basin contains emergent, submergent, and riparian vegetation. The southeastern portion of the detention basin is sparsely vegetated.

The upland area around the Harris detention basin consists of a maintained disk golf course in an oak savanna with a non-native grassland understory.

Stormwater runoff from the adjacent areas is conveyed to the detention basin as surface runoff or through two urban inlets, one on the north corner and one in the east corner of the Harris detention basin. Water surface elevation in this site is controlled by an outlet located in the south-eastern corner of the detention basin. A hole in the base of the outfall structure is present at the lowest point in the detention basin. Due to the configuration of the outlet, the distribution of wetland habitat within the detention basin is driven by the topography and the location of the inlets. Toad and tree frog larvae were present in the ponded water during the survey. Vegetation consisting of a willow and a patch of cattails is present in a depression located along the northern and eastern sides of the detention basin, and is included in the wetland habitat. Sandmat manzanita (Arctostaphylos pumila) was observed adjacent to the Harris project site.

Approximately 0.2 acres of wetland habitat is present at Harris Detention Basin (Figure 10).

Approximately 0.9 acres of oak savanna is also present in the assessment area.

Wilson Detention Basin
The Wilson project site is located within disturbed oak woodland and is an instream feature. A creek flows into the site from on the eastern end of the project site, and an outfall is present on the western end of the project site. The water surface elevation in the detention basin is controlled by the outfall.

Vegetation along the water margin on the north-eastern portion of the detention basin consists mostly of California bulrush. Tall cyperus with patches of bulrush and cattail is the dominant vegetation present within the site.

Approximately 0.2 acres of wetland habitat is present at Wilson detention basin. Approximately 0.5 acres of disturbed oak woodland is also present in the assessment area (Figure 11).

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 19 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 200, Packet Page 354

D
-
-
N ~======:::J A
~-------=========================;:::::=========,======= Assessment Area
Habitat
Disturbed Oak Savanna
Wetland
0 75 150 ft
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © 0 25 50 m OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Maps\Figure 10 - 8x11 Harris 20160415.mxd
Title:

Harris Detention Basin
Habitat Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.01 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
10 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 201, Packet Page 355 York Rd
Blue Larkspur Ln
Wilson Rd

D
-
-
Assessment Area
Habitat
Disturbed Oak Woodland
Wetland
0 75 150 ft
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 25 50 m Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Maps\Figure 11 - 8x11 Wilson 20160415.mxd
Title:

Wilson Detention Basin
Habitat Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.01 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
11 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 202, Packet Page 356

Detention Basin Maintenance Project

SENSITIVE HABITATS
Wetlands and other waters of the U.S. were present at all of the project sites assessed and will be impacted by the proposed project. The wetlands present within the project sites are likely jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to Appendix D, City of Monterey Detention Basin Management Project; Wetland Delineation for additional information. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the primary federal agency responsible for regulating wetlands and other waters of the U.S. The Corps regulates the placement of dredge and fill material, including activities such as operating heavy equipment inside the detention basins. No riparian habitat or other sensitive habitats were mapped within the evaluation area.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Published occurrence data within the proposed project areas and surrounding USGS quadrangles were evaluated to compile a table of special-status species known to occur in the vicinity of the project sites (Appendix C).6 Each of these species was evaluated for their likelihood to occur within and immediately adjacent to the project sites. The special-status species that are known to or have been determined to have the potential to occur within or immediately adjacent the project site are discussed below. All other species within the table are assumed “unlikely to occur” or have a low potential to occur at the project sites for the species-specific reason presented in Appendix C. Additionally, focused surveys were conducted at the project sites for a number of special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur (Appendix E).

Special-Status Wildlife Species
Raptors and Other Migratory Bird Species
As with other migratory bird species, raptors and their nests (including hawks, eagles, falcons, kestrels, and owls) are protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. While the life histories of these species vary, overlapping nesting similarities (approximately from mid-March to August 1) allows their concurrent discussion. Most raptors are breeding residents throughout the wooded portions of the state. Raptors can be found from sea level to above 9,000 feet. Stands of live oak, riparian deciduous, or other forest habitats, as well as open grasslands, are used most frequently. Nesting also occurs in isolated stands of trees adjacent to foraging habitat. Most species nest in tree crotches 10 to 80 feet, but usually 20 to 50 feet, above ground. Breeding occurs between March and August, with peak activity May through July. Many raptor species hunt in open woodland and habitat edges and often in agricultural fields.

Suitable habitat exists at all of the project sites for nesting raptors and other migratory bird species.

However, no trees will be removed as a result of the project.

Tricolored Blackbirds
Tricolored blackbirds are a riparian avian species are protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. The tricolored blackbird is protected by the DFW. Riparian and wetland habitats have some of the highest diversity of land birds of any terrestrial habitat type in the western United States.

Tricolored blackbirds breed near fresh water, preferably in emergent wetlands with tall, dense cattails or tules, but also in thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose and tall herbs, which also serve as their preferred nesting habitat. Nests are built of mud and plant materials over or near fresh water, especially in 6 The USGS quadrangles in which published CNDDB data was searched included, Carmel Valley, Marina, Monterey, Mt.

Carmel, Salinas, Seaside, Soberanes Point, and Spreckles.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 22 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 203, Packet Page 357

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
emergent wetlands. This species is highly colonial and the minimum nesting colony size is about 50 pairs (Grinnell and Miller 1944).

Suitable habitat for tricolored blackbirds exists at all of the project sites. However, focused surveys were conducted in the spring of 2016 at the project sites for tricolored blackbirds (Appendix E). No individuals or nesting colonies of tricolored blackbirds were detected at any of the project sites and none are expected to occur.

Coast Horned Lizard
The coast horned lizard is a DFW species of special concern. Coast horned lizards occur in valley-foothill hardwood, conifer, and riparian habitats, as well as in pine-cypress, juniper, chaparral, and annual grass habitats. This species generally inhabits open country, especially sandy areas, washes, flood plains, and wind-blown deposits in a wide variety of habitats. Coast horned lizards rely on camouflage for protection and will often lay motionless when approached. Coast horned lizards often bask in the early morning on the ground or on elevated objects such as low boulders or rocks. Predators and extreme heat are avoided by burrowing into loose soil. Periods of inactivity and winter hibernation are spent burrowed into the soil or under surface objects. Little is known about the habitat requirements for breeding and egg-laying of this species. Prey species include ants, beetles, wasps, grasshoppers, flies, and caterpillars. Coast horned lizards have the potential to occur in the grasslands within the project sites.

Suitable habitat for this species is present at all of the project sites assessed. Coast horned lizard is known to occur throughout Monterey County. This species has a moderate potential to occur within the project sites.

California Tiger Salamanders
The CTS was listed as a federally threatened species on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47211-47248). Critical habitat was designated for CTS on August 23, 2005 (70 FR 49379-49458), and went into effect on September 22, 2005. Additionally, CTS was listed as a state threatened species on March 3, 2010.

The CTS is a large, stocky salamander most commonly found in annual grassland habitat, but also occurring in the grassy understory of valley-foothill hardwood and chaparral habitats, and uncommonly along stream courses in valley-foothill riparian habitats (USFWS, 2004). Adults spend most of their lives underground, typically in burrows of ground squirrels and other animals (USFWS, 2004). The CTS has been eliminated from an estimated 55 percent of its documented historic breeding sites. Currently, about 150 known populations of CTS remain. The CTS persists in disjunct remnant vernal pool complexes in Sonoma County and Santa Barbara County, in vernal pool complexes and isolated stockponds scattered along a narrow strip of rangeland on the fringes of the Central Valley from southern Colusa County south to northern Kern County, and in sag ponds and human-maintained stockponds in the coast ranges from the San Francisco Bay Area south to the Temblor Range.

Above-ground migratory and breeding activity may occur under suitable environmental conditions from mid-October through May. Adults may travel long distances between upland and breeding sites; adults have been found more than two kilometers (1.24 miles) from breeding sites (USFWS, 2004). Breeding occurs from November to February, following relatively warm rains (Stebbins, 2003). The CTS breeds and lays eggs primarily in vernal pools and other temporary rainwater ponds. Permanent human-made ponds are sometimes utilized if predatory fishes are absent; streams are rarely used for reproduction. Eggs are laid singly or in clumps on both submerged and emergent vegetation and on submerged debris in shallow water (Stebbins, 1972; Jennings and Hayes, 1994). Males typically spend 6-8 weeks at breeding ponds, while females typically spend only 1-2 weeks (Loredo et al., 1996). Eggs hatch within 10-14 days (USFWS, 2004) and a minimum of 10 weeks is required to complete development through metamorphosis (Jennings and Hayes, 1994), although the larval stage may last up to six months and some Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 23 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 204, Packet Page 358

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
larvae in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties may remain in their breeding sites over the summer (USFWS, 2004).

CTS have a moderate potential to occur at the Harris and Lower Ragsdale project sites. There is appropriate CTS breeding and upland habitat at the Harris and Lower Ragsdale project sites. Additionally, there are three CTS occurrences located within 2 kilometers (the known dispersal distance for CTS) of Harris and Lower Ragsdale.

CTS are unlikely to occur at Lake El Estero, Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin, Washerwoman’s Pond, and Wilson. While there are four occurrences of CTS within the known dispersal distance of the Wilson, there is no appropriate habitat within or directly adjacent to the Wilson project site. There are no CTS occurrences reported within five-kilometers of the Lake El Estero, Washerwoman’s Pond, or Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin project sites and CTS are not expected to occupy these project sites due to a lack of upland habitat, highly developed and disturbed landscape, presence of non-native predators, and proximity to the coast.

California Red-Legged Frog
The CRLF was listed as a federally Threatened species on June 24, 1996 (61 FR 25813-25833) and is also a DFW species of special concern. The CRLF is the largest native frog in California (44-131 mm snoutvent length) and was historically widely distributed in the central and southern portions of the state (Jennings and Hayes, 1994). Adults generally inhabit aquatic habitats with riparian vegetation, overhanging banks, or plunge pools for cover, especially during the breeding season (Jennings and Hayes, 1988). They may take refuge in small mammal burrows, leaf litter, or other moist areas during periods of inactivity or to avoid desiccation (Rathbun et al., 1993; Jennings and Hayes, 1994). Radiotelemetry data indicates that adults engage in straight-line breeding season movements irrespective of riparian corridors or topography and they may move up to two miles between non-breeding and breeding sites (Bulger et al., 2003). During the non-breeding season, a wider variety of aquatic habitats are used including small pools in coastal streams, springs, water traps, and other ephemeral water bodies (USFWS, 1996). CRLF may also move up to 300 feet from aquatic habitats into surrounding uplands, especially following rains, where individuals may spend days or weeks (Bulger et al., 2003).

This species requires still or slow-moving water during the breeding season where it can deposit large egg masses, which are most often attached to submergent or emergent vegetation. Breeding typically occurs between December and April depending on annual environmental conditions and locality. Eggs require 6 to 12 days to hatch and metamorphosis generally occurs after 3.5 to 7 months, although larvae are also capable of over-wintering. Following metamorphosis, generally between July and September, juveniles are 25-35 mm in size. Juvenile CRLF appear to have different habitat needs than adults. Jennings and Hayes (1988) recorded juvenile frogs mostly from sites with shallow water and limited shoreline or emergent vegetation. Additionally, it was important that there be small one-meter breaks in the vegetation or clearings in the dense riparian cover to allow juveniles to sun themselves and forage, but to also have close escape cover from predators. Jennings and Hayes also noted that tadpoles have different habitat needs and that in addition to vegetation cover, tadpoles use mud. It is speculated that CRLF larvae are algae grazers, however, foraging larval ecology remains unknown (Jennings et al., 1993).

It has been shown that occurrences of CRLF are negatively correlated with presence of non-native bullfrogs (Moyle, 1973; Jennings and Hayes, 1986 and 1988), although both species are able to persist at certain locations, particularly in the coastal zone. It is estimated that CRLF has disappeared from approximately 75% of its former range and has been nearly extirpated from the Sierra Nevada, Central Valley, and much of southern California (USFWS, 1996).

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 24 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 205, Packet Page 359

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Suitable habitat is present at all of the project sites. However, no CNDDB occurrences are recorded within a 1-mile radius of any of the project sites and protocol level surveys for CRLF were conducted at the project sites in 2016 with a negative result (Appendix E).

Western Pond Turtle
The DFW recognizes the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) as consisting of two subspecies, the northwestern pond turtle (A. m. marmorata) and the southwestern pond turtle (A. m. pallida), and has identified both subspecies as species of special concern. For the purposes of this report the western pond turtle will be discussed on a species level and not at the DFW-recognized subspecies level and both subspecies and all clades will be considered special-status and species of special concern as designated by DFW.

Western pond turtles are uncommon to common in permanent or nearly permanent aquatic resources in a wide variety of habitats throughout California, west of the Sierra-Cascade crest and are absent from desert regions, except in the Mojave Desert along the Mojave River and its tributaries. Elevation range extends from near sea level to 1430 meters (4690 feet). Western pond turtles require basking sites such as partially submerged logs, rocks, mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks. The home range of western pond turtles is typically quite restricted; however, ongoing research indicates that in many areas, turtles may leave the watercourse in late fall and move into upland habitats where they burrow into duff and/or soil and overwinter (Holland, 1994). Western pond turtles remain active year-round and may move several times during the course of overwintering. The time spent in the terrestrial habitat appears highly variable; in southern California western pond turtles may remain in these sites for only a month or two. In pond and lake habitats, however, some turtles remain in the pond during the winter (Holland, 1994).

Additionally, during the spring or early summer, females move overland for up to 100 meters (325 feet) to find suitable sites for egg-laying. Nests are typically excavated in compact, dry soils in areas characterized by sparse vegetation, usually short grasses or forbs (Holland, 1994). Three to 11 eggs are laid from March to August depending on local conditions (Ernst and Barbour, 1972). The western pond turtle is not known to be territorial, but aggressive encounters, including gesturing and physical combat (Bury and Wolfheim, 1973), are common and may function to maintain spacing on basking sites and to settle disputes over preferred spots. This species is considered omnivorous and food sources include aquatic plant material, beetles, and a wide variety of aquatic invertebrates. Fishes, frogs, and carrion have also been reported among their food (Stebbins, 1972).

Suitable habitat for this species is present at Lake El Estero, Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin, Washerwoman’s Pond, Lower Ragsdale, and Wilson detention basins. However, habitat at these project sites has been degraded due to the proximity to developed environments and human disturbance. This species is unlikely to occur at Harris Detention Basin as this resource does not provide permanent or nearly permanent water.

Focused surveys were conducted at the project sites by DD&A biologist in spring of 2016 (Appendix E).

An unidentified turtle with the potential to be a western pond turtle was observed at Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin. While the turtle was not observed long enough for a positive identification, it is assumed that it was a western pond turtle; therefore, this species is assumed present at Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin. Western pond turtles were not observed any other detention basin during the 2016 surveys.

Coast Range Newt
The coast range newt, a subspecies of the California newt (Taricha torosa), is a DFW species of special concern within all portions of their range south of the Salinas River in Monterey County. This species was historically distributed in coastal drainages from the vicinity of Sherwoods (central Mendocino County) in the North Coast Ranges, south to Boulder Creek, in San Diego County (DFG, 2008).

Populations in southern California appear to be highly fragmented, even historically. This species has Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 25 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 206, Packet Page 360

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
been depleted by large-scale historical commercial exploitation coupled with the loss and degradation of stream habitats, particularly in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. The records of Slevin (1928) for Baja California are thought to be erroneous (Stebbins, 1951). The known elevation range of this species extends from near sea-level to 1830 meters (Stebbins, 1985). In central California, breeding appears to occur in two waves, the first in January or February and the second in March or April (Stebbins, 1951; Miller and Robbins, 1954), although coast range newts may enter ponds as early as December. Larvae take approximately three to six months to reach metamorphosis and subsist largely on aquatic invertebrates and also conspecifics. Adult coast range newts eat a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates (earthworms, insects, snails, beetles, stoneflies, etc.) as well as egg masses, larvae, and carrion.

Breeding and egg-laying occur in intermittent streams, rivers, permanent and semi-permanent ponds, lakes and large reservoirs. Eggs are laid in small clusters on the submerged portion of emergent vegetation, on submerged vegetation, and on the underside of rocks off the bottom. Coast range newt eggs contain toxic glands which repel many predators. However, coast range newt larvae may represent a significant seasonal food for newborn individuals of certain snakes, including California red-sided garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) and the Endangered San Francisco garter snake (T. s. tetraenia) (DFG, 2008).

Suitable habitat for this species is present at all of the project sites. Habitat for this species at Washerwoman’s Pond, Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin, and Lake El Estero is degraded by the proximity to urban development and disturbance associated with the uses adjacent to these project sites.

Monterey Dusky-Footed Woodrat
The Monterey dusky-footed woodrat is a DFW species of special concern. This is a subspecies of the dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma macrotis), which is common to oak woodlands throughout California.

Dusky-footed woodrats are frequently found in forest habitats with moderate canopy cover and a moderate to dense understory; however, they may also be found in chaparral communities. Relatively large nests are constructed of grass, leaves, sticks, and feathers and are built in protected spots, such as rocky outcrops or dense brambles of blackberry (Rubus sp.) and/or poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Typical food sources for this species include leaves, flowers, nuts, berries, and truffles.

Dusky-footed woodrats may be a significant food source for small- to medium-sized predators.

Populations of this species may be limited by the availability of nest material. Within suitable habitat, nests are often found in close proximity to each other.

Suitable habitat for this species is present at all of the project sites assessed. Monterey dusky-footed woodrat is known to occur throughout Monterey County. This species has a moderate potential to occur within the project sites.

Special-Status Plant Species
Two of three protocol plant surveys have been completed at all of the detention basins. A third protocol plant survey will be conducted in the summer of 2017. The following special-status plant species have been determined to occur or have the potential to occur at the project sites:

Sandmat Manzanita
Sandmat manzanita is a CNPS List 1B species in the Ericaceae family. This perennial evergreen shrub is associated with closed-cone coniferous forest, maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub at elevations of 3-205 meters. This species was observed adjacent to the Harris project site.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 26 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 207, Packet Page 361

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Monterey Cypress
Monterey cypress is a CNPS List 1B species in the Cupressaceae family. This evergreen tree is associated with closed-cone coniferous forest at elevations of 10-30 meters. This species natively occurs only at Cypress Point in Pebble Beach and Point Lobos State Park, but is widely planted and naturalized elsewhere.

Monterey Cypress trees were present in the upland area at the Washerwoman’s Pond project site. As the study area is outside of the few naturally occurring native stands of Monterey cypress, it is likely that individuals present within the study area were planted. No tree removal is planned as part of the proposed project. No impacts to Monterey cypress are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.

Pink Johnny-Nip
Pink johnny-nip (Castilleja ambigua var. insalutata) is a CNPS List 1B species in the Orobanchaceae family. This annual herb is found in coastal prairie and coastal dunes at elevations of 0-100 meters. The blooming period is from May to August. Marginal habitat for this species is present at Harris and Lower Ragsdale detention basins.

Hickman’s Cinquefoil
Hickman’s cinquefoil (Potentilla hickmanii) is a federal and state endangered, and CNPS List 1B species in the Rosaceae family. This perennial herb is found in coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, vernally mesic meadows and seeps, and freshwater marshes and swamps at elevations of 10-149 meters.

The blooming period is from April-August. Suitable habitat is present at all project sites evaluated.

Marsh Microseris
Marsh microseris (Microseris paludosa) is a CNPS List 1B species. This perennial herb in the Asteraceae family is found in closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. The elevation range for marsh microseris is 5-300 meters and the blooming period is from April to July. Suitable habitat for this species is present at Harris, Lower Ragsdale, and Wilson detention basins. Marginal habitat for this species is present at Washerwoman’s Pond.

California Screw Moss
California screw moss (Tortula californica) is a CNPS List 1B species in the Pottiaceae family. This moss is found in chenopod scrub, or valley and foothill grasslands on sandy soils at elevations of 10-1460 meters. Suitable habitat is present at Harris and Lower Ragsdale detention basins.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in significant impacts to sensitive habitats and several special-status species. Mitigation measures have been provided below to reduce these potential impacts.

Sensitive Habitats
Impact 1: Fringe wetlands are present at all of the project sites evaluated and have the potential to be impacted by the proposed project. Wetlands within the majority of the project sites occur as thin bands of vegetation on the fringe of the basins at the tow of the slope of a steep bank. The project sites are all either man-made or are historic resources that have been significantly modified over the last century. All of the project sites have experienced dredging and vegetation removal over the years. Impacts to wetlands in the first year will include removal of 50% of the vegetation at all of the basins except Washerwoman’s Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin; these two basins will be drained and regraded in the first year (year 1), resulting in the removal of all of the existing wetland. In subsequent years, only 50% of the Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 27 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 208, Packet Page 362

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
vegetation would be removed every two years at all of the basins. The maximum acres of wetland that would be impacted by the proposed project during year 1 are presented in Table 1. Impacts to wetlands in subsequent years (2-15) would very likely total less than 0.10 acre per year averaged over that time period for all of the project sites combined. This depends on the amount of sediment and subsequent establishment of fringe wetlands over time. Some detention basins collect more sediment than others and it may be that dredging and associated vegetation removal will not be needed more than twice throughout the 15 year permit period at each site, depending on sedimentation rates.

Table 1: Approximate acreage of wetlands mapped at each project site and approximate acreage of wetlands impacted by the proposed project in year 1.

Project Site Area of Wetlands Mapped
(Acres)
Area of Wetlands Impacted in
Year 1 (Acres)
Lake El Estero ~1.22 ~0.61
Washerwoman’s Pond ~0.31 ~0.31
Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin ~0.34 ~0.34
Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin ~0.24 ~0.12
Harris Detention Basin ~0.22 ~0.11
Wilson Detention Basin ~0.17 ~0.09
Total ~2.50 ~1.58
Impacts resulting from the proposed project will include removal of vegetation and sediment that form wetlands within the project sites. This impact will temporarily reduce the existing wetland habitat within the project sites. As sediment continues to enter the project sites in-between dredging events, new wetlands will form and replace those that have been removed via maintenance activities. No permanent changes to wetlands will result from the proposed project. The following mitigation measure has been provided below to reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Subsequent to the initial dredging and vegetation removal scheduled for year 1 as described above, vegetation removal will occur no more than once every two years at each basin and include the removal of no more that 50% of the emergent vegetation to minimize the scope and scale of the temporary loss of wetland function and value.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
Impact 2: Impacts to coast horned lizard and coast range newt may include direct mortality of individuals as a result of construction activities within the project site, as well as indirect impacts associated with construction noise and ground disturbance. Mitigation is presented below to reduce the potential for impacts to coast horned lizard and coast range newt to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction activities, the project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct an Employee Education Program for the construction crew. The biologist shall meet with the construction crew at the project site at the onset of construction to educate the construction crew on the following: 1) a review of the project boundaries; 2) all special-status species that may be present, Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 28 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 209, Packet Page 363

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
their habitat, and proper identification; 3) the specific mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the construction effort; 4) the general provisions and protections afforded by the regulatory agencies; and 5) the proper procedures if a special-status animal is encountered within the project site. A fact sheet or other supporting materials containing this information will be prepared and distributed. Upon completion of Employee Education Program, employees will sign a form stating that they attended the training and understand all the conservation and protection measures. Educational programs will be conducted for new personnel before they join construction activities. The crew foreman will be responsible for ensuring that all crew members comply with the guidelines.

Impact 3: Nesting raptors and other migratory bird species are protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. If construction occurs during the nesting season (February 15 to August 1), there is the potential to impact nesting raptors and other migratory bird species. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by the DFW and is considered a significant impact. This impact can be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with the implementation of the mitigation measure identified below in combination with mitigation measure BIO-2 above.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: To avoid and reduce impacts to nesting raptors and other migratory bird species construction activities can be timed to avoid the nesting season, after September 1 and before January 31 to avoid impacts to these species. Alternatively, if avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted for nesting raptors and other migratory bird species within 300-feet of proposed construction activities if construction is to be initiated between February 1 and August 1. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction. If nesting raptors and other migratory bird species are identified during the pre-construction surveys, an appropriate no-disturbance buffer shall be imposed within which no construction activities or disturbance shall take place 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.

Impact 4: Potential breeding and upland habitat for CTS exists within two of the project sites assessed, Lower Ragsdale and Harris detention basins. If CTS are present at these project sites, implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact CTS. Project construction activities could result in individual mortality and habitat destruction. Implementation of the following mitigation measures in combination with measure BIO-2 above will avoid take and reduce impacts to CTS to a less-thansignificant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4A: The project proponent shall prepare a habitat assessment for CTS in accordance with USFWS protocol. This biological report and the site assessment shall be submitted to the USFWS and DFW for review and a request for concurrence that the project is not likely to result in take of CTS from both agencies. If it is determined by either of these agencies that take is likely, incidental take authorizations will be acquired prior to the initiation of construction at these project sites.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4B: All ground disturbing construction activities will occur in September, after any CTS larva, if present, would have transformed and exited the basins.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4C: All ground disturbing activity would be restricted to within the basins. No grading will occur outside of the basins for access or staging.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4D: Before ground disturbing work activities begin each day, a biological monitor will inspect under construction equipment and materials to look for California tiger salamanders.

If a California tiger salamander is found during these checks or during construction, construction Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 29 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 210, Packet Page 364

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
activities will cease until USFWS and DFW is consulted and appropriate actions are taken to allow project activities to continue.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4E: A qualified biologist will monitor all ground disturbing construction activity. After ground disturbing project activities are complete, the qualified biologist will train an individual to act as the on-site construction monitor. The on-site monitor will have attended the training described above. Both the qualified biologist and the construction monitor will have the authority to stop and/or redirect project activities to ensure protection of resources and compliance with all environmental permits and conditions of the project. The qualified biologist and construction monitor will complete a daily log summarizing activities and environmental compliance.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4F: To prevent inadvertent entrapment of California tiger salamanders during the proposed project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep will be covered at the close of each working day with plywood or similar materials. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they will be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.

Potential Impact 5: Western pond turtles are assumed to be present at Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin following the observation of a turtle during the 2016 spring surveys. Maintenance of the Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin detention basin could result in impacts to western pond turtles, a DFW species of special concern. Implementation the mitigation measures identified below in combination with the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2 above will reduce impacts to western pond turtles to a lessthan-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5A: A qualified biologist shall conduct trapping of turtles consistent with USGS Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata) Trapping Survey Protocol for the Southcoast Ecoregion (USGS, 2006) at the Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin detention basin no more than 48 hours prior to the initiation of draining. The biologist shall relocate the western pond turtle the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat and would not be affected by activities associated with the detention basin maintenance.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5B: If a nest of eggs is encountered during the trapping effort or maintenance activities, a buffer of no disturbance will be established by the qualified biologist to protect the eggs from impacts. Maintenance can be reinitiated within the no-disturbance buffer subsequent to the eggs hatching.

Impact 6: Suitable habitat for Monterey dusky-footed woodrat is present at all of the project sites assessed and implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact this species. Project construction activities could result in individual mortality, noise disturbance, and habitat destruction.

Implementation of the mitigation measure identified below in combination with implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2 above will reduce potential impacts to Monterey dusky-footed woodrats to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6: To avoid and reduce impacts to the Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, the project proponents shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys in suitable habitat proposed for construction, ground disturbance, or staging within three days prior to construction for woodrat nests with the potential to be impacted by the project. All woodrat nests shall be flagged for avoidance of direct construction impacts and protection during construction, where feasible. Nests that cannot be avoided shall be manually deconstructed prior to land clearing activities to allow animals to escape harm. If a litter of young is found or suspected, nest material shall be replaced, and the nest left alone for 2-3 weeks before a re-check to verify that young are capable of independent survival before proceeding with nest dismantling.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 30 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 211, Packet Page 365

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Special-Status Plant Species
Impact 7: Special-status plant species have the potential to occur at all of the project sites. Sandmat manzanita has been observed adjacent to Harris. If special-status plant species do occur within the project sites, construction activities associated with the project, including vegetation removal could result in impacts to this species. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified below in combination with implementation measure of mitigation measure BIO-2 above will to reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO-7: To reduce and avoid impacts to special-status plant species focused rare plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist during the appropriate blooming periods, prior to the initiation of construction activities. If any special-status plant species are identified within the area of potential impact, they shall be avoided. If avoidance is not possible, the individual plants can be transplanted to appropriate areas in or adjacent to the project site prior to the initiation of constriction activities and monitored annually for three years. If the transplanted species fail to survive during this monitoring period, they shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 and the three-year monitoring period shall recommence. If the plants cannot be transplanted to another portion of the property, an alternate location near the project site may be utilized with permission of the Landowner. Alternatively, seeds can be collected and used to grow individuals on-site at a 1:1 ratio.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 31 Biological Resources Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 212, Packet Page 366

REFERENCES
Bulger, J.B., N.J. Scott Jr., and R.B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological Conservation, Vol. 110. Pp. 85-95.

Bury, R.B. and J.H. Wolfheim. 1973. Aggression in free-living pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata). BioScience, Vol. 23. Pp. 659-662 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). 2008. California Wildlife Relationships System: Life History Accounts. Database Version 8.2.

DFW. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Available online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959 DFW. 2010. List of California terrestrial natural communities recognized by the Natural Diversity Database.

DFW. 2017. California Natural Diversity Database Rare Find Report (March, 2017).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Botanical Survey Guidelines. Available Online at:
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/pdf/cnps_survey_guidelines.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/ Ernst, C.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. University Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY. 347 pp.

Hickman, J.C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1400 pp.

Holland, D. C. 1994. The Western Pond Turtle: Habitat and History. Final Report. Portland, OR: U.S.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.

Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 156 pp.

Howitt, B.F. and J.T. Howell. 1964. The vascular plants of Monterey County, California.

Howitt, B.F. and J.T. Howell. 1973. Supplement to the vascular plants of Monterey County, California.

Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History Association, Pacific Grove, CA. 60 pp.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology Vol. 20 (4).Pp. 490¬-509.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1988. Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): implications for management.

Proceedings form Management of Amphibians, Reptiles and Small Mammals in North America Symposium 1988
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 213, Packet Page 367

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California.

Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. 255 pp.

Jepson Flora Project. 2015. Jepson Online Interchange for California floristics. Available online at:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html
Loredo, I., D. Van Vuren, and M. L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat use and migration behavior of the California tiger salamander. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30(2). Pp. 282-285.

Matthews, M.A and M. Mitchell. 2015. The Plants of Monterey County; an Illustrated Field Key (Second Edition). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 446 pp.

Moyle, P.B. 1973. Effects of introduced bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana, on the native frogs of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Copeia 1973. Pp. 18-22.

Miller, M. R., and M. E. Robbins. 1954. The reproductive cycle in Taricha tarosa (Triturus torosus).

Journal of Experimental Zoology, Vol. 125(3). Pp. 415-445.

Munz, P. A. and D. D. Keck.1973. A California flora and supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1681 pp., + 224 pp. supplement.

Rathbun, G.B., M.R. Jennings, T.G. Murphey, and N.R. Siepel. 1993. Status and ecology of sensitive aquatic vertebrates in lower San Simeon and Pico Creeks, San Luis Obispo County, California.

Unpublished report, National Ecology Research Center, Piedras Blancas Research Station, San Simeon, California.103 pp.

Remsen, J.V. Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. California Dept. of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations, Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report No. 78-1.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation 2nd Edition.

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the California Red-legged Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 61(101). Pp. 25813-25833.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Proposed designation of critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County distinct population segment of the California Tiger Salamander. Federal Register, Vol. 69(14). Pp 3064-3094.

Stebbins, R. C. 1951. Amphibians of western North America. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 538 pp.

Stebbins, R.C. 1972. California Amphibians and Reptiles. University of California Press, Berkeley. 152 pp.

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. Western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 336 pp Stebbins, R.C. 2003.Western reptiles and amphibians, 3rd edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY.533 pp.

Thelander, C. (ed.). 1994. Life on the edge: A guide to California’s endangered natural resources:
wildlife. BioSystems Books, Santa Cruz, CA.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 214, Packet Page 368

USFWS. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of threatened status for the California Tiger Salamander; and special rule exemption for existing routine ranching activities; Final rule. Federal Register, Vol. 69(149). Pp. 47211-47248.

USFWS. 2015 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species Which May Occur in Monterey County.

Available online at:
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=06053 USGS. 2006. USGS Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata) Trapping Survey Protocol for the Southcoast Ecoregion. USGS survey protocol. Sacramento, CA. 30 pp Williams, D. 1986.Mammalian species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game Report 86-1. 112 pp.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1988. California’s wildlife, Volume I: Amphibians and reptiles. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.272 pp.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume II: Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.731 pp.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 215, Packet Page 369

APPENDIX A
City of Monterey Detention Basin Management Project
Current Earthwork Exhibits for the Project Sites
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 216, Packet Page 370 0 0 0 0
0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------., 0 - - ' -... • c-g:._ , , ,_ / - - - " / ,, ·; ,
''-<--c - - ' :--j7
' - - / , - / ,
~ I~
0 I~
' '
,_
- /
'
' ,,-
I
1 +00
Elevations Table
Number Minimum Elevation Maximum Elevation Area Volume (CY) Color 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Vo1umc Summary
Name Type
Vol_02 full
Totals
Tolal
... ....,.below.
ea1an ..... ,....,
-2.00 0.00 1412.94 21 ■

0.00 2.00 14536.46 2049 ■

2.00 4.00 13136.09 953 ■ ~ \ ~ I \~

4.00 6.00 3209.46 377 ■ - ~ -=- ~ ~\ -- ~ -=- \

6.00 8.00 2127.63 201 ■ --~ ===~=~==-=
--- ~~ - \ --- 8.00

10.00 Cut Fill
Factor Factor

1.000 1.000

10.00 1537.04 59

12.00 125.37 0
2dArea Cut Fill Net
(Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.)
36085.00 2 1.48 3639.10 3617.62<Fill>
2d Area Cut Fill Net
(Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.)
36085.00 21.48 3639,10 361 7.62<Fill>
* Value adjusted by cut or fill factor other than 1.0
■
■
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 LO
0)
--
1+50

CITY OF MONTEREY

DEPARTMENT OF PLANS AND PUBLIC WORKS
.
- . ~
<.D 0 <.D -st- <.D LO LO LO LO N
co 0 co
- -- 2+00 2+50
-, '~
z /
z /
"'-' ,
' _-.,
' - /
-. /
' - L
= - , , /
' , , , ,
II
I~ I~ 11 0 0
11 I~ It
11 y.
- - - - -
r--- -st- 0 N
<.D -st- <.D <.D <.D t') <.D N
LO <.D LO LO N LO r---
co N co -- co N co <.D
- - - - 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50
,
, ,, , - - - ' , ' /
'
' ..,_
,
I~
0 I Ji
~ - ~
~
-
-st- <.D LO N
LO -
<.D -st- LO
co cxi - oi
- --
5+00 5+50
- ,Y
-/
,
/
, /
-- GRAPHIC SCALE:
20 0
- r
t') <.D
N N t')
r...: 0)
--
6+00
z
'
20 -
111 = 20'
40 24
23 22
21 20
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
~
-
0 '
0,
0 2+00.00 3+00.00 4+00.00 5+00.00
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

CURRENT BOTTOM OF
POND IN MAY 2016

CURRENT BOTTOM OF
POND IN MAY 2016

CURRENT BOTTOM OF CURRENT BOTTOM OF
POND IN MAY 2016 POND IN MAY 2016

CURRENT BOTTOM OF
POND IN MAY 2016

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
POND IN AUGUST 1984

DRAINS TO

LAKE EL ESTERO
S:\800-Pub-Works\807-CIP\807-02-CIP-Projects\CN\CIP Current\33c1554 Washerwoman-Lagunita Detention Basins\Design\Plans\Dwgs\Baseshts\Washerwoman Earthwork.dwg, 2/15/2017 10:56:25 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3

APPROXIMATE POND ACCESS LOCATION

EXISTING CONCRETE

STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE

CURRENT BOTTOM OF
POND IN MAY 2016

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
POND IN AUGUST 1984

WASHERWOMAN CENTERLINE PROFILE
SCALE H: 1" = 20'
V: 1" = 4'
DESIGNED BY: NO. DATE REVISION SCALE:

STAFF 1"= 20'
DRAWN BY: WASHERWOMAN DETENTION POND DATE:

STAFF FEBRUARY 15, 2017 (33C1554 MEASURE P) CHECKED BY: SHEET:
580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY, CA 93940 STAFF
CAD DWG NAME: SEDIMENT REMOVAL EXHIBIT TEL: 831.646.3921 WEBSITE: WWW.MONTEREY.ORG FILE NAME SHEET 5 OF 5 FULL SCALE PLOT SIZE: 22" X 34"

WASHERWOMAN DETENTION POND

DESIGN BOTTOM OF

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
POND IN AUGUST 1984

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
POND IN AUGUST 1984 DESIGN BOTTOM OF
POND IN AUGUST 1984
POND IN AUGUST 1984
6+00.00
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 217, Packet Page 371 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------------,., Elevations Table
Number Minimum Elevation Maximum Elevation Area Volume (CY) Color 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 I- >--'s;
,_
.... '
"
... ....,.below.
ea1an ..... ,....,
. "
-'s
-6.00 -4.00 3.46 0 ■
-4.00 -2.00 3961.38 69 ■
-2.00 0.00 9401. 71 600 ■

0.00 2.00 15868.04 1680 ■

2.00 4.00 12522.45 655 ■

4.00 6.00 2775.33 65 ■

6.00 8.00 18.60 0 ■

8.00 10.00 0.03 0 ■

10.00 12.00 0.50 0 ■
'
'
=fS ,
I
' ' =i J
- --
' - . ~I ' ·~ I - ' -
' -..,_
' ' I
,-
I I
-- ,
' , , - ' I I
" I
I ' . ' '
' \
" .
' _j_
I , ~
- ~
-~ , , -

CITY OF MONTEREY

DEPARTMENT OF PLANS AND PUBLIC WORKS
Volume Summary
Name Type
Vo1_02 full
Totals
Total
-
,
Cut
Factor

1.000
Fill
Factor

1.000
2d Area
(Sq. Ft.)
44551.00
2dArea
(Sq. Ft.)
44551.00
Cut
(Cu. Yd.)
669.33
Cut
(Cu. Yd.)
669.33
Fill
(Cu. Yd.)
2399.89
Fill
(Cu. Yd.)
2399.89
Net
(Cu. Yd.)
1730.55
Net
(Cu. Yd.)
1730.55
* Value adjusted by cut or fill factor other than 1.0
-----------
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
,
-
,
15 14
13 12
1 1
10 '
.
~
":Ji2 ~
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
= 0
0 I')
"
I')
0,
cxi «>
1+50
-- lfv Pt,;----
- '1:2 r--
--l_ -

I - ---
N
0,
c--.i
1 I
I
I
"
-
"
r--:
2+00
- -
y
0 If) 0 N
"
OCJ
"
v
0 N ci ci ..;' ..;'
2+50 3+00
" -
OCJ v
r:::
0,
«> 0, If)
If) ..;' v
c--.i ..;' «>
3+50 4+00
GRAPHIC SCALE: ,.. = 20'
OCJ 00
«> 0
- c--.i --
4+50
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 0
-
0 '
0,
0 0
0 0
2+00.003+00.004+00.00

DRAINS TO

LAKE EL ESTERO

CURRENT BOTTOM OF
POND IN MAY 2016

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
POND IN AUGUST 1984

APPROXIMATE POND ACCESS LOCATION

CURRENT BOTTOM OF
POND IN MAY 2016

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
POND IN AUGUST 1984

EXISTING CONCRETE

STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE

CURRENT BOTTOM OF
POND IN MAY 2016

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
POND IN AUGUST 1984

CURRENT BOTTOM OF
POND IN MAY 2016

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
POND IN AUGUST 1984

LAGUNITA MIRADA CENTERLINE PROFILE
SCALE H: 1" = 20'
V: 1" = 4'
DESIGNED BY: NO. DATE REVISION SCALE:

STAFF 1"= 20'
DRAWN BY: LAGUNITA MIRADA DETENTION POND DATE:

STAFF FEBRUARY 15, 2017 (33C1554 MEASURE P) CHECKED BY: SHEET:
580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY, CA 93940 STAFF
CAD DWG NAME: SEDIMENT REMOVAL EXHIBIT TEL: 831.646.3921 WEBSITE: WWW.MONTEREY.ORG FILE NAME SHEET 4 OF 5 FULL SCALE PLOT SIZE: 22" X 34"

WASHERWOMAN DETENTION POND
25 2+00.00
25 20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 70
25 3+00.00
25 20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 90
25 4+00.00
25 20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 90
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 218, Packet Page 372 "U r'l
::0 X
0 U) "U -I 0 -z U) G) r'l
0 r'l
r'l r r'l r
r'l <
< -I
-I 0
a m
0 z
z U)
U)
228.61
::!I ,. 225.58 • ,. 226. 74
:I:
m
z ,. 223.49 • t-224.59
-1(")
- 222.26· 224.15
-a 0
~.,,
z :I:
222.38- 223.95 222.48- 223.89
u, 0 (') ;o
,. z 0 z -I (/)
(/) a m U) 0 (/)
-a m r m
222.57 • 223.77
-222.66-r223.73
r'.l C -< m <I
r- -- 0 = =
- z
n 11 II (/) -N
::e ;i;! qo_ 0 0 ::a + 01 ;:Iii; 0
-222.7&-r223.73
222.85 - 223.72
222.94 • 223.64
u, 223.03 • 223.78
223.12 • 224.01
,. 223.21 • 1- 224.26 ,. 224.95 • 1- 226.10
-
... 227.87
7J r'l
::0 X
0 U) 7J -I 0 z U) G) r'l 0 r'l
r'l r r'l r
r'l <
< -I
-I 0
0 z U) z
U)
228.70
r 224.96 226.57
0222.90 224.34 0222.30 223.44
,. 222.41 • -223.97
r222.53· -223.84
(')
;o
0 r 222.65 223.40
(/)
U) (/)
0 (/)
r m
r 222.76 222.94
r'.l (')
<I -I
-
- 0
= = z
~222.8& 222.91
II 11
-N (/)
qo ;i;!
0222.98 223.10
.....
+ ,. 223.07 r223.66 0
0 r 223.16 224.06
0223.78 225.33
r 225.83 227.10 r 227.52
7J r'l
::0 X
0 U) 7J :::I 0 z U) G) r'l
0 r'l
r'l r r'l r
rT1 j;: < :::I
-I 0
0 z U) z
U)
228.15
r225.24· r226.54
r 223.08 225.37 r 222.42 224.52
0222.74 224.66
,. 223.06- -224.53
(')
;o
0 ,. 223.38· -224.39
(/)
U) (/)
0 (/)
r m
r 223.68 224.30
r'.l ()
<I -I
-- 0
= ::::: z
~223.99- 224.31
II 11
-N (/)
qq_ ;i;!
r 224.35 224.45
.....
+ .. 224.76 224.76
01 0
,. 225.58· r226.38
.. ·,. 227.52
226.56
D
N N
0 p
N N
0 ,
p
N N
0 I,
I,
N N
(J1
V
V
' r-.

I'
"
1 ·I'
I I
V
I'
N N
(J1
N N
(J1
I/
I/ V
I•
I' I'
N N
(J1
N N
(J1
'
N N
(J1
' •
Ii
II
'
I/
N
L.j
01 co
0 I
-..J
0 I
0)
0 I
(J1
0 I
.j>.
0 I
L.j
0 I
N
0 I
-
0 0 0
N
0 L.j
0 .j>.
0 (J1
0 0)
0 -..J
0 N
L.j
0 "' (,,
C
" I
I
co 0
11 I
I I
I
-..J
0 I
0)
0 I
(J1
0 I
t
I
L.j
0 I
N
0 I
-
0 0 0
N
0 L.j
0 t
(J1
0 0)
0 N
L.j
0 "' (,,
C I
co 0
I
I I
I
I
-..J
0 I
0)
0 I
(J1
0 I
.j>.
0 I
L.j
0 I
N
0 I
-
0 0 0
N
0 L.j
0 .j>.
0 (J1
NO
L.j
0 7J rT1
::0 X
0 U) 7J -I 0 z U) G) rT1
0 rT1
rT1 r rT1 r rT1 <
< -I
-I 0
0 z
z U)
U)
>- 226.05 • +- 227.16
>-223.82 • +- 225.58
222.44 r 224.70
222.45 .. 223.98
222.47 .. 223.74
I(')
;o
0 222.51 .. 223.42
(/)
U) (/)
0 (/)
r m r'l (')
>- 222.60 • >- 223.08
<I -I
-
- 0 ' ' >--222.69- >- 222.92
II II z
-N (/)

0.o. ;i;!
222.78 r 222.71
I~ 222.87 r 222.51
I\)
01 222.97 r 222.64
223.06 r 222.77
>-223.15 • +- 222.28
>- 223.61 -+- 224.92
• 225.54· >- 226.62
7J rT1
::0 X
0 U) 7J -I 0 z (/) G) rT1 0 rT1
r'l r rT1 r r'l <
< -I
-I 0
0 z
z (/)
(/)
228.56
225.18 • 226.36 223.15 • 224.38
222.28- 223.77
-222.40--223.64
- 222.51 --223.39
(')
;o
0 222.63- 223.22
(/)
U) (/)
0 (/)
r m
222.73 • 222.99
r'.l (')
<I -I
-
- 0
::::: ::::: z
-222.82--- 222.84
II 11
-N (/)
a.a ;i;!
222.91 - 223.01
0 +
>- 223.00 ->-223.05
......
01 223.09- 223.46
223.18 • 224.07
224.35- 225.53 226.22 227.51
7J rT1
::0 X
0 U) 7J :::I 0 z (/) G) rT1
0 rT1
rT1 r rT1 r
rT1 <
< -I
-I 0
0 z U) z
(/)
228.41
• 225.10 • >- 226.40
223.00· 224.24 222.30· 223.82
222.43 224.16
- 222.55-,. 224.01
(')
;o
0 - 222.68 -• 223.84
(/)
U) (/)
0 (/)
r m
222.81 - 223.65
r'.l (')
<I -I
-- 0 ::: = z >--222.90- 223.70
II 11
-N (/)
qq_ ;i;!
223.01 223.75
.....
+ 223.13- 224.06 I\)
01 • 223.25 • >-224.94
• 225.18 • >- 226.61
- 227.46
225.99
p
N N
0 I>
,
)
N N
0 D
N N
0 1,
I,
N N
(J1
I/
I/
I/
\
"
1,
'
N N
(J1
N N
(J1
11,,
I ,
1,
I/
\
N N
(J1
N N
(J1
I/
Ii
'' e
I' r,_
11 II
N N
(J1
11 I '
V
r
N
L.j
0 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
-..J
0 I
0)
0 I
(J1
0 I
.j>.
0 I
L.j
0 I
N
0 I
-
0 0 0
N
0 L.j
0 .j>.
0 (J1
0 0)
0 -..J
0 N
L.j
0 "' (,,
C I
co
0 I
I
I
-..J
0 I
0)
0 I
(J1
0 I
t
I
L.j
0 I
N
0 I
-
0 0 0
N
0 L.j
0 .j>.
0 (J1
0 0)
0 N
L.j
0 N
L.j
01 co 0
I
-..J
0 I
0)
0 I
(J1
0 I
.j>.
0 I
L.j
0 I
N
0 I
-
0 0
-
0 N
0 L.j
0 .j>.
0 (J1
0 Ol
NO
L.j
0 \
l
0) (J1
- 9
0 0 0 0
""
-
0 0 "' 0
L.j L.j
-
"' 9 0 "' Ol (J1 (J1 0
(J1 L.j
0 )
I
L
.j>. L.j
I I
9 (J1
-
0 0 0
9 I 9 0
0 (J1 0
L.j .j>.

Ol
.j>. 9 µ,
00 L.j "' "'
L.j N L.j 0)
0) L.j
z
C
N
- s::

ID
rT1
::0
s::
z
s::

C
I I s::
- N r'l (J1 -..J r 0 L.j r'l
<
-I
0 z
s::
"" s:: C
I I s::
-
-
rT1 0 (J1 r 0 0 rT1
j;:
:::I
0 z
00 L.j
0 Ol ::0
.j>.
- rT1 "' 9 :t co (J1 (/)
,,
- L.j < L.j
- 0 00 r
0 -<
0 0
r
0 ::0
-----
\
'
\ 9o
\i
\ \ \
\\
\ \\
-
,
\ \ \
\ ij \
\ ; \ \ \ \
'
l ::0 \
m
r
m
-I
0 z
(/)
> CD
r
m
@
:· \ \ \\
1 \\ I r
\ \ \ I
(/)
0 r r'.l
<I
--
' ' II II
NN
·q
II )>
;o ;o
(/)
;o
m
-I
m
z
-I
0 z
"U
;o
10 "Tl
r
1m
0 +
0 0 0
+
N
(J1
0 +
(J1
0 0
+
-..J
(J1
-
+
0 0
-
+
N
(J1
+
-
(J1
0 +
-..J
(J1
LLb.:>4
222.92 222.69 223.73 222.76 222.84 222.82
222.91
222.88 223.70 222.90
224.31
223.99 224.95
\

N N N N
( . - tJ
N
N
N
'
/~
1 I
N
N
(.,-J
\
\_
* i
&. '"
l
,:{
(l
s.

S;
s
it'
I
5'­
§ 0
-
,-i
0 -
E..

N N
w
.j>.
00 0
0 --J
°' 00 .._,
00 w V.
0 °'
--J
w w
.._,
w
I\
("J
" 'v
,-i
a
-"
<: :i: z <:
0 - '" " = - 3. e
-
" "' ,. e
,-i "' = '"" e 'Cl e "' ..
- 'Tl
0 " ("J 0 ::l.=
0 = ., -
- 'Tl
0 " 'Tl " = 0 0 s--
.,
N
... "' ,:,. >!">
0,.

N ...
w
.j>. "' p..
00 >!" >
0 0 00,
("J
,:: ("J
~=- p..
0 --J
°' ("J 00 F ("J N
00 -< s.
p..
0 ("J
f'"l
-<=
w
V. ("J 0 F -.; °' ~-=
p..
0 p.
--J
w
("J
Fz
-<
p..
0 w ("J
.._, Fz w
I\
("J p..
s. 0
V
[ L \ , ;;

TOP OF BANK
~
- ------- \ ( ) 1/
0 ±.
(J1
0 :::0
+
of
l'l
--l
fTl
:z:
0 z
,
/
_-::__
£?- \ ) 1~11/
• ·- •• - . ...
y - \ ( ( I II
\ ( ;/ 1/

I I I I
--
......... J'fa,
11) I 1U I / !
11}11\I\ \ V
\\~\1\I\ r
I
--
u--
/
/
/
l;t.-.!.t, ,.,o
\\ \\\
\
·
·
~I\
~
\~ '
\ \ )
I
11 I
\\
I I I ( \ \
fil~ J I I I \ \ I I r 1
I I
I
11 / I / I \
\,, / I I I ,1 I ) I I

ELEVATION

N N N N
+- c.. n
N
N
(fl
,) ::: v
v,..,
,..
-
\
I/
11' I'-
I \
\
'~
'
N
N
-1'-
i::::"
,,....
'
N
N
(JI
'r--
N
N
CJ)
/
N N
',..]
N
N
-.__j
N 0 .,. G)
::0
"U
I
0 U)
0 0 .,.._
r
N
0 ...
0 r'.l
-
II
N
0 /
- - - REV 09/01/2015
IN SPRING 2016

BOTTOM OF POND
POND

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
DESIGN BOTTOM OF DESIGN BOTTOM OF BOTTOM OF POND DESIGN BOTTOM OF BOTTOM OF POND POND IN 1982 POND IN 1982 IN SPRING 2016 BOTTOM OF POND POND IN 1982 IN SPRING 2016 IN SPRING 2016 BOTTOM OF POND DESIGN BOTTOM OF BOTTOM OF POND DESIGN BOTTOM OF BOTTOM OF POND IN SPRING 2016 POND IN 1982 IN SPRING 2016 POND IN 1982 IN SPRING 2016 POND IN 1982

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
DESIGNED BY: NO. DATE REVISION SCALE:

STAFF 1"= 20'
HARRIS RETENTION POND DRAWN BY: DATE:

STAFF FEB 15, 2017 (33C1319) CHECKED BY: SHEET:
580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY, CA 93940 STAFF
CAD DWG NAME: SEDIMENT REMOVAL EXHIBIT TEL: 831.646.3921 WEBSITE: WWW.MONTEREY.ORG Ryan Ranch Basins.dwg SHEET 2 OF 5 FULL SCALE PLOT SIZE: 22" X 34"
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 219, Packet Page 373 \
\
\
\
---- ---- ---- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

ELEVATIONS TABLE

NUMBER MINIMUM ELEVATION MAXIMUM ELEVATION AREA (SF) VOL (CY) COLOR 1 -5.00 -4.00 2.62 0 ■
2 -4.00 -3.00 793.58 11 ■
3 -3.00 -2.00 2264.76 65 ■
4 -2.00 -1.00 5570.40 209 ■
5 -1.00 0.00 3923.69 400 ■
6 0.00 1.00 1688.68 26 ■

RETENTION BASIN
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ ---
Volume Summary
Name
Lower
ragsdale
Totals
Total
Cut Fill 2dArea Cut Fill Net Type Factor Factor (Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) full 1.000 1.000 14245.00 685.40 26.43 658.97<Cut>
2d Area Cut Fill Net
(Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.)
14245.00 685.40 26.43 658.97<Cut>
* Value adjusted by cut or fill factor other than 1.0

CITY OF MONTEREY

DEPARTMENT OF PLANS AND PUBLIC WORKS
-
-
-
z
0 f­
<(
>
w
_J
w
\
14 14
14 14
14 r
4 ~
-
2 I
n
14 13 •.:,
0 "' "'
-
"""
'I
I /I
o+oo
-
----./
---
,, v·
' ,
\
'
\
\
'
'
en en
LO N
N en
""" ~ "' ~
0+25
li§Ql
0 50
~ILTATIONI BASIN
I BOT ELEV. 1139.2 (FG)
I
'. / '-G
V '" uro Ill "u 10
/
-
-
, ,L ... n, 11 c.,v, _,, •
/
N 0 <D 0 "' 0
en N en N
" N
:;j: en ci en 0 en
"' """ "' -- ~
- - - """ "'
0+50 0+75 1+00

LOWER RAGSDALE PROFILE
SCALE: H 1" = 20'
V 1" = 2'
I •
I
• "
j
/
/ ,
/
, ,
N en
" <D
0 en
- -
""" "'
1+25
/
I
I
,
en
,,.;
"""
"""
~
145
144
143
142
141
140
139
0 00
N
"""
1+50
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20·
o 20 40
"'-- --------
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
145 / " ' ' ' /
'" ·~
' - - - . - - - - 140
•
LO N
" " <D ~
EXISTING ELEVATIONS ..,: ..,: ci
- -
""" """ """
~
' '
: "' 00
LO 0
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS,. :;j: ci . """ ,L ~ ~
~
-
IU
en "' en <D
0 "' "' LO N en
"' N N N :;j:
""" """ """ """ ~
- ~ ~
' ' - ' ' d, ' '
<D
" ;;:; N N N "'
"' "' oi "' en oi
-
"' "'
- "' "' "' ' ~
. . - CROSS SECTION STA 0+25
SCALE: H 1" = 20'
V 1" = 10'
'
0 <D
:;j:
~
'
LO
"'
oi
"'
~
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
145
-
140
• -
i~ :;j:

EXISTING ELEVATIONS r •
. :;j:
' - ~
- """ PROPOSED ELEVATIONS~ "
:;j:
i -:-
, ' , n
1 - -
"
""" :;j:
-
"
~
ci
-
""" '
- =r
N .. .. 00
"""
N ~ N
0 - "' <D N
N N :;j: :;j: :;j:
-""" """
~
. ' - - - ' .
~ 0 0 0 0 N N N N
oi oi oi oi oi
"' "'
- "' "' "' 'T ~
-:- -:- ' '
CROSS SECTION STA 0+50
SCALE: H 1" = 20'
V 1" = 10'
- --
n
-
-
"""
00 ci
"""
~
"'
<D
oi
"'
-:-
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
145
" ~ -- 140
. ,_
LO 0 0
(J) 0 l!1
EXISTING ELEVATIONS ,,.; :;j: ci
-
""" """ ~ ~
" 00
(J) N
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS :;j: 0
- """
~
. ,
/ ✓
- - -
n
N 0 <D
l!1 00 (J)
""" "' " l!1
ci ci ci 0 ci
-
""" -""" """ """ """ . . ~ ~
- ' '
~ 0 0 0 N N N "
""" (J) (J) (J) (J) (J)
"'
~ "'
- "' "' "' 'T ~
' ' - CROSS SECTION STA 0+75
SCALE: H 1" = 20'
V 1" = 1 O'
11R
'
(J)
ci
"""
"""
~
l!1
l!1
0 """
~
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
145
- 140
l!1
""" (J)
N
"""
<O
EXISTING ELEVATIONS ,,.; ci
"""
:;j:
- """ ~ -:- '
0 :;j: N
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS N ci
-
""" """
~
- II I' L
,
, fr2tl1u ,
~ - "
" LO "' 00
<D <D r::::
0 ci ci ci " "ci
""" """ """ """
st
- ~ ~ ~
-:- ' ' ' '
' '
~ (J) 0 0 <D

N N N LO
(J) (J) (J) (J) oi
"'
~
-
"' "' "' "' . ' 'T - - CROSS SECTION STA 1+00
SCALE: H 1" = 20'
V 1" = 10'
~ -
L
l!1
<D
:;j:
~
'
<D
<D
ci
"""
~
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
145
140
• -
' -
N N l!1
0 """
0 EXISTING ELEVATIONS ..,: N :;j:
""" """ ~ ~ ~
"' """ """ l!1
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS N 0
"""
-:- """
~
'" ., '
/ ·~ ~
, ... ... - /
, - - - IVI
·- .. . .. 98:

N
""" """ 00 0
LO 00
" " 0
ci ci ci ci "' :;j: N
""" """ """ """ """ ~
- ~ ~ - ~
. . ' '
~ 00 00 N
"""
l!1
<D <D 00 "' (J)
(J) (J)
"' (J) 0 ci
"' "' "' "' -:- -:- 'T """ """ ~
-:- ~
'
CROSS SECTION STA 1+25
SCALE: H 1" = 20'
V 1" = 10'
-
I ,L
I
;;:;
:;j:
~
"
"'
oi
"'
~
40 I
00 <D
ci
-"""
~
<D
ci
"""
~
40 "' 0
N
"""
~
"'
"'
N
"""
~
40 -
~
~
,,.;
-
"""
<D
N
"""
"""
~
40 VI
LO
LO
N
"""
-:-
-
"'
0 N
50 ' -
0 145 '
m
0 G'.i
140 "'
135
"
00 :;j:
-
•
'll
' ti
. >-
50 145
140
135 , n
,fi
>-
"'
~
N
"""
'
50 145
140
135
"
"'
,,.;
"""
-;-
cj
"
N
"""
'
50 145
140
135
0 " N
-;-
"""
145
140
135
- - -
DESIGNED BY: NO. DATE REVISION SCALE:

STAFF 1"= 20'
DRAWN BY: LOWER RAGSDALE SILTATION BASIN DATE:

STAFF FEB 15, 2017 (33C1319) CHECKED BY: SHEET:
580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY, CA 93940 STAFF
CAD DWG NAME: SEDIMENT REMOVAL EXHIBIT TEL: 831.646.3921 WEBSITE: WWW.MONTEREY.ORG Ryan Ranch Basins.dwg SHEET 1 OF 5 FULL SCALE PLOT SIZE: 22" X 34"
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 220, Packet Page 374 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.,, Volume Summary
Name
Wilson
Vol
Totals
Total
NUMBER
1 2
3 Type
Cut Fill 2dArea Cut Fill Net
Factor Factor (Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.)
full 1.000 1.000 5514.00 77.91 0.00 77.9l<Cut>
2dArea Cut Fill Net
(Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.)
5514.00 77.91 0.00 77.9l<Cut>
• Value adjusted by cut or fill factor other than 1.0

ELEVATIONS TABLE

MINIMUM ELEVATION MAXIMUM ELEVATION AREA (SF) VOL (CY) COLOR -1.01 -0.67 29.70 0 ■
-0.67 -0.33 4890.64 11 ■
-0.33 0.00 593.51 67 ■

CITY OF MONTEREY

DEPARTMENT OF PLANS AND PUBLIC WORKS

PARKING LOT
,._,.·, , /"
18 z
0 r- 18
<(
>
w 18 _J
w
18 n
u
7 C
V
C
- - ~
I
-
-=~ -- - =--
~ - -
0 0
st- st-
<.!) <.!)
ro ro
--
0+25
DETE~TION
I
I
I
- I/
/
~ - - - ~ - .....
<.!) <.!)
"'
(0 "' (0
ro ro
- -
0+50
~ -
"' "' "'
(0 "' (0
ro ro
- -
0+75
~

WILSON DETENTION PROFILE
SCALE: H 1" = 20'
V 1" = 2'
-
188
187
186
185
II
11 I
11 I
11 I
11 I
11 I
11 I
11 I
11 I
11 I
11 I
II I
0 <(
0 0::::

Y'.
0::::
0 >-
ro
<.!)
?i:
:r:
a
fGRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20·
20 0 20 40

BLUE LARKSPUR ROAD
/2 ~ ~-:___ ~ ':'
If '--I
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
(µ
I II
I II
IL
I II
I II
I 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
195
'
190 '
. , __

EXISTING ELEVATIONS
' ' . st0 -
L[)
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS N a:i
"' ro
- -.

I
'
' I ,
' ,
' ' /
' ' '
' ' ' ' ' 0 0 0 0 0
st- st- st- st- st-
<.!) <.!) <.!) <.!) <.!)
ro ro ro ro ro
- - ' ' ' ' ' - - - .
0 0 6 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
<.!) <.!) <.!) <.!) <.!)
ro ro ro ro ro
- - . "j" - - CROSS SECTION STA 0+25
SCALE: H 1" = 20'
V 1'' = 10'
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
195
190 '
'
' I
.-- I I . . <.!)
EXISTING ELEVATIONS "' <.!)
ro
-. ' ' 0 "' 0
ELEVATIONS~
m 0
PROPOSED (0 (0
"' ro ro
' - -'
,
/ ,
I I I I I I I I I I I .
<.!) <.!) <.!) r-- ro
"'
<.!) "' <.!) "' <.!) "'
<.!) <.!) "'
ro ro ro ro ro
- - - . - - ' ' g ' ' 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
(0 (0 (0 (0 (0
ro ro ro ro ro
- - ' ' - - CROSS SECTION STA 0+50
SCALE: H 1" = 20'
V 1" = 1 O'
30 40 50
/
/
~
/
. ' '
ro
r..:
r-- "'
- ro oi
-. -
30 40 50
,
,
I I
.
"'
"'
<.!)
ro
-.
' '
0 N m
0 r-- L[)
(0 (0
ro ro -m
- - ' '
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
195
190 ,....._ I
' ' ' . ·-- ' ' '
"'
N
EXISTING ELEVATIONS <.!)
ro
' ' -. L[)
"' 0 m 0 0
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS oi r..: <.!)
co co co
' - -'
, ,
/
' ' '
'
N <.!)
"' 0 ::i= "' "' "' st-
<.!) <.!) <.!) <.!) (0
ro ro ro ro ro
- - - - - . ' ' ' ' '
0 0 6 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
<.!) <.!) <.!) <.!) <.!)
co co co co co - - ' ' - - CROSS SECTION STA 0+75
SCALE: H 1" = 20'
V 1'' = 10'
/
/ ,
.
'
'
"'
st-
<.!)
ro
-. ' '
0 st- N
0 ro
<.!) "' r..: N
co co m
- - ' '
195
190
185
195
190
185
195
190
185
-
0 ~
-
z
m
0 - - -

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
POND IN 1982

BOTTOM OF POND
IN SPRING 2016

DESIGN BOTTOM OF BOTTOM OF POND
POND IN 1982 IN SPRING 2016

DESIGN BOTTOM OF BOTTOM OF POND
POND IN 1982 IN SPRING 2016

BOTTOM OF POND
IN SPRING 2016

DESIGN BOTTOM OF
POND IN 1982
DESIGNED BY: NO. DATE REVISION SCALE:

STAFF 1"= 20'
DRAWN BY: WILSON DETENTION BASIN DATE:

STAFF FEB 15, 2017 (33C1319) CHECKED BY: SHEET:
580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY, CA 93940 STAFF
CAD DWG NAME: SEDIMENT REMOVAL EXHIBIT TEL: 831.646.3921 WEBSITE: WWW.MONTEREY.ORG Ryan Ranch Basins.dwg SHEET 3 OF 5 FULL SCALE PLOT SIZE: 22" X 34"
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 221, Packet Page 375

APPENDIX B
City of Monterey Detention Basin Management Project
Plans for Installation of Cofferdams at Lake El Estero
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 222, Packet Page 376 -21--aC}
I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I
I I J
I I I
I I
PG¢:E 11
Fi,/e

EL ESTERO
_,,___ ___ Fe,,.,ce -
I
I/
~ l~"W.J ~I Pl~
I
--6- - - 1
:fit';;
110_91•a:-.
- -- -- _ 1"~55Ul'?C M-A"-l-\-101,.-j:; 'CfJ CASI/JG I -#'')/.(" P/¥:S9 _;-,,c /'-"-- / Ov,Ltc-r $YRVC,VRJS \ - - -;ii :°J-!¥:============:::::::::::~3======$=======1t=il~~~~tt:.~_~__j~~~-c:.-=~~~~d,,: ~~ EB i I - - ~1µ--1--+---l Hl----l
/ 11 I I -- ! l-\j \1 ,(£/al_~--+- - ---- - ~;, - -- --- ---- • i I
~ ~ Ea.sen-,e,-,+, (See JC-/ ~ 1 II"- ,, _;c;---11
1 I EQ.5emen-l-; ,5ee
I .

I I
I I
I I
I I
: I
~ ,
1 Ord,<'JCl,,..C.e /53-4-CS -b l;)I I ·2'1-..,/4'V .:5cfl(!"EFO/i'r'," ·-;°( Ord,'nc,,oce, /5"34CS ':V;rJl;1Aw ~ .-----_ ___:__::_109_:_'!__-c._r' .7. ·_ ,~/:-~~~~ - --·-r·' -Ea,~--.~~:e·······'-- •• ---- ~ _ Ordinance' !Soc c.::,
-~

1. DEWATER:

LAKE

DEWATER
-/fOO
I
0 I
~- t
l
l
I
~
-xl
J-fOO
I
1 ~ l~ ·f
~~
~
-~
N
~- ::5~
I-
~
0 I­ N ~
+ 0
'l -+4'
Nonnol Wdu J,JrV. +~.,;
Level 7£ -~ '1~- -~v/'' \7Al'\K Si\,:fY SAl>ll?
-t"l-!V. ""4.5
:t/-l1V +zs
~1-iv. +os
c~!'.Al'sl FIN!: ~J,.U,I( 5AN0
SoF"f BW!i- C.vi>--'r'
--+--- -----+---+---+----+----15
10 M.L.L.W
DESIGNED BY: SCALE:

CITY OF MONTEREY RFL 1"= 20'
DRAWN BY: EL ESTERO LAKE EDGE RESTORATION DATE:

DEPARTMENT OF PLANS AND PUBLIC WORKS RFL MAR 2017
CHECKED BY: SHEET:
580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY, CA 93940 JK
CAD DWG NAME: EXHIBIT EXH
TEL: 831.646.3921 WEBSITE: WWW.MONTEREY.ORG DEWATERING.DWG EXH 1 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 223, Packet Page 377

APPENDIX C
City of Monterey Detention Basin Management Project
Special-Status Species Table
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 224, Packet Page 378

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Special Status Species
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity

MAMMALS
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend’s big-eared bat
-- / CSC / -- Found primarily in rural settings from inland deserts to coastal redwoods, oak woodland of the
inner Coast Ranges and Sierra foothills, and low to
mid-elevation mixed coniferous-deciduous forests.

Typically roost during the day in limestone caves,
lava tubes, and mines, but can roost in buildings
that offer suitable conditions. Night roosts are in
more open settings and include bridges, rock
crevices, and trees.

Unlikely
No maternity roosting habitat present at any of
the project sites assessed.

Lasiurus cinereus
Hoary bat
-- / -- / -- Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics with access to trees for cover and open areas or edge for
feeding. Generally roost in dense foliage of trees;
does not use buildings for roosting. Winters in
California and Mexico and often migrates towards
summer quarters in the north and east during the
spring. Young are born and reared in summer
grounds, which is unlikely to occur in California.

Unlikely
Not known to breed in California. A historic
CNDDB occurrence from 1907 encompasses
Lake El Estero, Lagunita Mirada, and
Washerwoman’s Pond.

Neotoma macrotis luciana
Monterey dusky-footed
woodrat
-- / CSC / -- Forest and oak woodland habitats of moderate canopy with moderate to dense understory. Also
occurs in chaparral habitats.

High
There is a high potential for this species to
occur at all project sites.

Reithrodontomys megalotis
distichlis
Salinas harvest mouse
-- / CNDDB / -- Known only to occur from the Monterey Bay region. Occurs in fresh and brackish water
wetlands and probably in the adjacent uplands
around the mouth of the Salinas River.

Unlikely
The project sites are not located near the
Salinas River.

Taxidea taxus
American badger
-- / CSC / -- Dry, open grasslands, fields, pastures savannas, and mountain meadows near timberline are
preferred. The principal requirements seem to be
sufficient food, friable soils, and relatively open,
uncultivated grounds.

Low
Given the proximity of the project sites
assessed to developed areas, this species is
unlikely to occur.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 1 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 225, Packet Page 379

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
BIRDS
Agelaius tricolor -- / SC / -- Nest in colonies in dense riparian vegetation, along Not Present Tricolored blackbird rivers, lagoons, lakes, and ponds. Forages over Surveys were conducted at the project sites by a (nesting colony) grassland or aquatic habitats. DD&A biologist in spring of 2016. No tricolored blackbirds were detected during
these surveys.

Athene cunicularia -- / CSC / -- Year round resident of open, dry grassland and Unlikely Burrowing owl (burrow sites & desert habitats, and in grass, forb and open shrub This species is unlikely to occur in the some wintering sites) stages of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitats. Frequent open grasslands and shrublands
with perches and burrows. Use rodent burrows
(often California ground squirrel) for roosting and
nesting cover. Pipes, culverts, and nest boxes may
be substituted for burrows in areas where burrows
are not available.
grassland area adjacent to Harris Detention
Basin as the area is heavily impacted by
pedestrian traffic.

This species is unlikely to occur at Lake El
Estero, Lagunita Mirada, Washerwoman’s
pond, Wilson Detention Basin, and Lower
Ragsdale Detention Basin due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Buteo regalis
Ferruginous hawk (wintering)
-- / WL/ -- An uncommon winter resident and migrant at
lower elevations and open grasslands in the Modoc
Plateau, Central Valley, and Coast Ranges and a
fairly common winter resident of grassland and
agricultural areas in southwestern California.

Frequent open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert
scrub, low foothills surrounding valleys, and
fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Does not breed
in California.

Low
Suitable habitat is present at Harris and Lower
Ragsdale Detention Basins; however, this
species is an irregular winter residence along
the coast.

No suitable habitat is present at Lake El Estero,
Lagunita Mirada, Washerwoman’s Pond, and
Wilson.

Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT / CSC / -- Sandy beaches on marine and estuarine shores, Unlikely Western snowy plover (nesting) also salt pond levees and the shores of large alkali lakes. Requires sandy, gravelly or friable soil
substrate for nesting.

No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Cypseloides niger -- / CSC / -- Regularly nests in moist crevice or cave on sea Unlikely Black swift cliffs above the surf, or on cliffs behind, or No suitable habitat is present at the project sites (nesting) adjacent to, waterfalls in deep canyons. Forages widely over many habitats.
evaluated.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 2 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 226, Packet Page 380

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
-- / CNDDB / -- Variety of open habitats, usually where large trees and/or shrubs are absent. Found from grasslands
along the coast to deserts at sea-level and alpine
dwarf-shrub habitats are higher elevations. Builds
open cup-like nests on the ground.

Low
Suitable habitat present at Harris and Lower
Ragsdale Detention Basins; however this
species is uncommon in Monterey Peninsula
proper.

Falco mexicanus
Prairie falcon (nesting)
-- / CNDDB / -- Associated primarily with perennial grasslands, savannahs, rangeland, some agricultural fields, and
desert scrub areas. Uses open terrain for foraging;
nests in open terrain with canyons, cliffs,
escarpments, and rock outcrops.

Unlikely
No suitable nesting habitat is present at the
project sites assessed.

Oceanodroma homochroa
Ashy storm-petrel (nesting
colony)
-- / CSC / -- Tied to land only to nest, otherwise remains over open sea. Nests in natural cavities, sea caves, or
rock crevices on offshore islands and prominent
peninsulas of the mainland.

Unlikely
No suitable nesting habitat is present at the
project sites evaluated.

Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus
California brown pelican
(nesting colony & communal
roosts)
-- / CFP / -- Found in estuarine, marine subtidal, and marine pelagic waters along the California coast. Usually
rests on water or inaccessible rocks, but also uses
mudflats, sandy beaches, wharfs, and jetties.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Riparia riparia
Bank swallow (nesting)
-- / ST / -- Nest colonially in sand banks. Found near water; fields, marshes, streams, and lakes.

Unlikely
No suitable nesting habitat is present at the
project sites assessed.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 3 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 227, Packet Page 381

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
Ambystoma californiense FT / ST /-- Annual grassland and grassy understory of valley- Moderate California tiger salamander foothill hardwood habitats in central and northern California. Need underground refuges and vernal
pools or other seasonal water sources.

There are three CTS occurrences located within
2 kilometers (the known dispersal distance) of
these project sites. There is appropriate CTS
breeding and upland habitat at the Harris and
Lower Ragsdale project sites. As a result, CTS
have the potential to occupy both the Harris and
Lower Ragsdale project sites.

While there are four occurrences of CTS within
the known dispersal distance of the Wilson
project site, there is no appropriate habitat
within or directly adjacent to this project site.

There are no CTS occurrences reported within
5 km of the Lake El Estero, Washerwoman’s
Pond, or Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin
project sites and CTS are not expected to
occupy these project sites due to a lack of
upland habitat, highly developed and disturbed
landscape, presence of non-native predators and
proximity to the coast.

Anniella pulchra
California legless lizard
(includes A. p. nigra and A. p.
pulchra as recognized by the
Department)
-- / CSC / -- Requires moist, warm habitats with loose soil for burrowing and prostrate plant cover, often forages
in leaf litter at plant bases; may be found on
beaches, sandy washes, and in woodland,
chaparral, and riparian areas.

Low
Poor quality habitat is present at Lake El
Estero, Lagunita Mirada, Washerwoman’s
Pond, Wilson Detention Basin, and Lower
Ragsdale Detention Basin. No suitable habitat
is present at Harris Detention Basin.

All of the project sites assessed are included in
a non-specific CNDDB occurrence that consists
of the entire USGS quadrangle.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 4 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 228, Packet Page 382

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Emys marmorata
Western pond turtle
(includes E. m. pallida and E.
m. marmorata as recognized by
the Department)
-- / CSC / -- Associated with permanent or nearly permanent water in a wide variety of habitats including
streams, lakes, ponds, irrigation ditches, etc.

Require basking sites such as partially submerged
logs, rocks, mats of vegetation, or open banks.

Present
Suitable habitat is present at Lake El Estero,
Lagunita Mirada, Washerwoman’s Pond,
Lower Ragsdale, and Wilson Detention Basins.

However, habitat at these sites has been
degraded due to the proximity of these project
sites to developed environments and human
disturbance associated with the use of the areas
adjacent to the project sites. This species is
unlikely to occur at Harris Detention Basin as
this resource does not provide permanent or
nearly permanent water.

Surveys were conducted at the project sites by
DD&A biologist in spring of 2016. An
unidentified turtle with the potential to be a
western pond turtle was observed at Lagunita
Mirada. While the turtle was not observed long
enough for a positive identification, it is
assumed that it was a western pond turtle;
therefore, this species is assumed present at
Lagunita Mirada. Western Pond Turtles were
not observed any other detention basin during
the surveys.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
Coast horned lizard
-- / CSC / -- Associated with open patches of sandy soils in washes, chaparral, scrub, and grasslands.

High
Suitable habitat is present at all project sites.

Rana draytonii FT / CSC / -- Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent or Not Present California red-legged frog late-season sources of deep water with dense, shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation. During
late summer or fall adults are known to utilize a
variety of upland habitats with leaf litter or
mammal burrows.

Suitable habitat is present at all of the project
sites evaluated. Protocol level CRLF surveys
were conducted at the project sites by DD&A
biologist in spring of 2016. No CRLF were
detected at the project sites during these
surveys.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 5 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 229, Packet Page 383

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Taricha torosa -- / CSC / -- Occurs mainly in valley-foothill hardwood, valley- High Coast Range newt foothill hardwood-conifer, coastal scrub, and mixed chaparral but is known to occur in
grasslands and mixed conifer types. Seek cover
under rocks and logs, in mammal burrows, rock
fissures, or man-made structures such as wells.

Breed in intermittent ponds, streams, lakes, and
reservoir.

Suitable habitat is present at all project sites;
however, habitat at Washerwoman’s Pond,
Lagunita Mirada, and Lake El Estero is
degraded by the proximity to urban
development and the disturbance associated
with the used adjacent to these project sites.

Thamnophis hammondii -- / CSC / -- Associated with permanent or semi-permanent Low Two-striped garter snake bodies of water bordered by dense vegetation in a variety of habitats from sea level to 2400m
elevation.

There is a low potential for this species to occur
at Lower Ragsdale and Wilson Detention
Basins as suitable habitat is present within
these project sites. There is only one CNDDB
occurrence reported in the USGS quadrangles
searched. This occurrence is approximately 10
miles from Wilson, and more than 10 miles
from the other project sites. This occurrence is
on the border of the Salinas Valley, in the
Spreckles quadrangle. There are no occurrences
of this species on the Monterey Peninsula
proper.

There is a low potential for this species to occur
at Lake El Estero, Lagunita Mirada,
Washerwoman’s pond, and Harris Detention
Basin. Vegetation at Lake El Estero is
managed. The vegetated area around
Washerwoman’s Pond and Lagunita Mirada is
surrounded by urban development and likely do
not provide enough area to support this species.

No suitable habitat is present at Harris
Detention Basin.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 6 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 230, Packet Page 384

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
FISH
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Tidewater goby
FE / CSC / -- Brackish water habitats, found in shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches. Tidewater gobies appear
to be naturally absent (now and historically) from
three large stretches of coastline where lagoons or
estuaries are absent and steep topography or swift
currents may prevent tidewater gobies from
dispersing between adjacent localities. The
southernmost large, natural gap occurs between the
Salinas River in Monterey County and Arroyo del
Oso in San Luis Obispo County.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
Steelhead
(south/central California coast
DPS)
FT / -- / -- Cold headwaters, creeks, and small to large rivers and lakes; anadromous in coastal streams.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

INVERTEBRATES
Coelus globosus
Globose dune beetle
-- / CNDDB / -- Coastal dunes. These beetles are primarily subterranean, tunneling through sand underneath
dune vegetation.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Danaus plexippus
Monarch butterfly
-- / CNDDB / -- Overwinters in coastal California using colonial roosts generally found in Eucalyptus, pine and
acacia trees. Overwintering habitat for this species
within the Coastal Zone represents ESHA. Local
ordinances often protect this species as well.

Unlikely
No suitable roosting habitat is present at the
project sites evaluated.

Euphilotes enoptes smithi
Smith’s blue butterfly
FE / -- / -- Most commonly associated with coastal dunes and coastal sage scrub plant communities in Monterey
and Santa Cruz Counties. Plant hosts are
Eriogonum latifolium and E. parvifolium.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella (fairy
shrimp)
-- / CNDDB / -- Ephemeral ponds with no flow. Generally associated with hardpans.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated as these resources experience flow
during storm events.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 7 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 231, Packet Page 385

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
PLANTS
Agrostis Lacuna-vernalis
Vernal pool bent grass
--/--/1B Vernal pool mima mounds at elevations of 115-
145 meters. Annual herb in the Poaceae family;
blooms April-May. Known only from Butterfly
Valley and Machine Gun Flats of Ft. Ord National
Monument.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites. Additionally, the
project sites are outside of the elevation range
for this species.

Allium hickmanii
Hickman’s onion
-- / -- / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forests, maritime
chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley
and foothill grasslands at elevations of 5-200
meters. Bulbiferous perennial herb in the Alliaceae
family; blooms March-May.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Arctostaphylos edmundsii
Little Sur manzanita
-- / -- / 1B Coastal bluff scrub and chaparral on sandy soils at elevations of 30-105 meters. Evergreen shrub in
the Ericaceae family; blooms November-April.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during field visits to
the project sites.

Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp.
hookeri
Hooker’s manzanita
-- / -- / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub on sandy
soils at elevations of 85-536 meters. Evergreen
shrub in the Ericaceae family; blooms JanuaryJune.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during field visits to
the project sites.

Arctostaphylos montereyensis
Toro mazanita
-- / -- / 1B Maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub on sandy soils at elevations of 30-730
meters. Evergreen shrub in the Ericaceae family;
blooms February-March.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during field visits to
the project sites.

Arctostaphylos pajaroensis
Pajaro manzanita
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral on sandy soils at elevations of 30-760 meters. Evergreen shrub in the Ericaceae family;
blooms December-March.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during field visits to
the project sites.

Arctostaphylos pumila
Sandmat manzanita
-- / -- / 1B Openings of closed-cone coniferous forests, maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
dunes, and coastal scrub on sandy soils at
elevations of 3-205 meters. Evergreen shrub in the
Ericaceae family; blooms February-May.

Present
This species was observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist adjacent to the Harris
project site during field visits.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 8 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 232, Packet Page 386

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Astragalus tener var. tener -- / -- / 1B Playas, valley and foothill grassland on adobe clay, Not Present Alkali milk-vetch and vernal pools on alkaline soils at elevations of 1-60 meters. Annual herb in the Fabaceae family;
blooms March-June.

This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites. Additionally, no
suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Astragalus tener var. titi FE / SE / 1B Sandy soils in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, Not Present Coastal dunes milk-vetch coastal prairie (mesic); elevation 3-164 feet.

Annual herb in the Fabaceae family; blooms
March-May.

This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites. No suitable habitat is
present at the project sites evaluated.

Bryoria spiralifera -- / -- / 1B California North Coast coniferous forest at Unlikely Twisted horsehair lichen elevations of 0–30 meters. Often found on conifers, including Picea sitchensis, Pinus
contorta var. contorta, Pseudotsuga menziesii,
Abies grandis, and Tsuga heterophylla. Fruticose
lichen in the Parmeliaceae family.

No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Castilleja ambigua var. -- / -- / 1B Coastal prairie and coastal scrub at elevations of 0- Moderate insalutata 100 meters. Annual herb in the Orobanchaceae Marginal habitat is present at Harris and Lower Pink johnny-nip family; blooms May-August. Ragsdale Detention Basins. The nearest CNDDB occurrences are approximately 3.5
miles from Harris and 3.6 miles from Lower
Ragsdale.

No habitat is present within the
Washerwoman’s Pond, Lagunita Mirada, and
Lake El Estero project sites. There is a historic
CNDDB occurrence for this species, from
1962, within the Lake El Estero study area.

Given the current maintained park setting of
Lake El Estero, it is unlikely that this species
would occur in the project study area. No
suitable habitat is present at the Wilson
Detention Basin.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 9 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 233, Packet Page 387

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
Congdon’s tarplant
-- / -- / 1B Valley and foothill grassland on heavy clay, saline, or alkaline soils at elevations of 0-230 meters.

Annual herb in the Asteraceae family; blooms
May-November.

Low
Poor quality habitat is present at Lower
Ragsdale and Harris detention basin as the
grassland present lacks the appropriate soil
types.

No habitat is present at Lake El Estero,
Lagunita Mirada, Washerwoman’s Pond, and
Wilson detention basin.

Chorizanthe pungens var.
pungens
Monterey spineflower
FT / -- / 1B Maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland on sandy soils at elevations of 3-450
meters. Annual herb in the Polygonaceae family;
blooms April-July.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Clarkia jolonensis -- / -- / 1B Cismontane woodland, chaparral, riparian Not Present Jolon clarkia woodland, and coastal scrub at elevations of 20- 660 meters. Annual herb in the Onagraceae family;
blooms April-June.

This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Collinsia multicolor -- / -- / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest and coastal scrub, Not Present San Francisco collinsia sometimes on serpentinite soils, at elevations of 30-250 meters. Annual herb in the Plantaginaceae
family; blooms March-May.

This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Cordylanthus rigidus ssp.
littoralis
Seaside bird’s-beak
-- / SE / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forests, maritime
chaparral, cismontane woodlands, coastal dunes,
and coastal scrub on sandy soils, often on disturbed
sites, at elevations of 0-425 meters. Annual hemiparasitic herb in the Orobanchaceae family; blooms April-October.

Low
Poor quality habitat is present at Lower
Ragsdale, Washerwoman’s Pond and Wilson.

The nearest CNDDB occurrences are
approximately 1.1 miles from Lower Ragsdale,

1.8 miles from Wilson, and 0.3 miles from
Washerwoman’s pond.

This species is unlikely to occur at Lagunita
Mirada, Lake El Estero, and Harris as no
suitable habitat is present at these project sites.

Delphinium californicum ssp.
interius
Hospital Canyon California
larkspur
-- / -- / 1B Openings in chaparral, coastal scrub, and mesic areas of cismontane woodland at elevations of 230-
1095 meters. Perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae
family; blooms April-June.

Unlikely
The project sites are outside of the elevation
range for this species.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 10 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 234, Packet Page 388

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Delphinium hutchinsoniae
Hutchinson’s larkspur
-- / -- / 1B Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, coastal scrub, and coastal prairie at elevations of 0-427
meters. Perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae
family; blooms March-June.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Delphinium umbraculorum
Umbrella larkspur
-- / -- / 1B Cismontane woodland at elevations of 400-1600 meters. Perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae
family; blooms April-June.

Unlikely
The project sites are outside of the elevation
range for this species.

Ericameria fasciculata
Eastwood’s goldenbush
-- / -- / 1B Openings in closed-cone coniferous forest, maritime chaparral, coastal dunes, and coastal
scrub on sandy soils at elevations of 30-275
meters. Evergreen shrub in the Asteraceae family;
blooms July-October.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during field visits to
the project sites.

Eriogonum nortonii
Pinnacles buckwheat
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral and valley and foothill grassland on sandy soils, often on recent burns, at elevations of
300-975 meters. Annual herb in the Polygonaceae
family; blooms May-September.

Unlikely
The project sites are outside of the elevation
range for this species.

Erysimum ammophilum
Sand-loving wallflower
-- / -- / 1B Openings in maritime chaparral, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub on sandy soils at elevations of 0-60
meters. Perennial herb in the Brassicaceae family;
blooms February-June.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Erysimum menziesii
Menzies’ wallflower
FE / SE / 1B Coastal dunes at elevations of 0-35 meters.

Perennial herb in the Brassicaceae family; blooms
March-September.

Unlikely
No habitat is present within the project sites.

Fritillaria liliacea
Fragrant fritillary
-- / -- / 1B Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland, often
serpentinite, at elevations of 3-410 meters.

Bulbiferous perennial herb in the Liliaceae family;
blooms February-April.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites. No suitable habitat is
present at the project sites evaluated. No
serpentinite soils are present.

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria
Monterey gilia
FE / ST / 1B Openings in maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub on
sandy soils at elevations of 0-45 meters. Annual
herb in the Polemoniaceae family; blooms AprilJune.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 11 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 235, Packet Page 389

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Hesperocyparis goveniana FT / -- / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest and maritime Not Present Gowen cypress chaparral at elevations of 30-300 meters.

Evergreen tree in the Cupressaceae family.

Natively occurring only at Point Lobos near
Gibson Creek and the Huckleberry Hill Nature
Preserve near Highway 68.

No suitable habitat is present at Harris, Lower
Ragsdale, and Wilson Detention Basins.

Washerwoman’s Pond, Lagunita Mirada, and
Lake El Estero project sites are outside of the
elevation range for this species.

Hesperocyparis macrocarpa -- / -- / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest at elevations of 10- Species Present Monterey cypress 30 meters. Evergreen tree in the Cupressaceae family. Natively occurring only at Cypress Point in
Pebble Beach and Point Lobos State Park; widely
planted and naturalized elsewhere.

This species is present at some of the project
sites; however, no Project Site is located within
the known native stands. Monterey cypress
present within the study area was likely
planted.

Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea -- / -- / 1B Openings of closed-cone coniferous forests, Unlikely Kellogg’s horkelia maritime chaparral, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub on sandy or gravelly soils at elevations of
10-200 meters. Perennial herb in the Rosaceae
family; blooms April-September.

No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Horkelia marinensis -- / -- / 1B Coastal dunes, coastal prairie, and coastal scrub on Low Point Reyes horkelia sandy soils at elevations of 5-350 meters. Perennial herb in the Rosaceae family; blooms MaySeptember.

Suitable habitat is present at Harris. The nearest
CNDDB occurrence is approximately 7 miles
from Harris detention basin.

This species is unlikely to occur at Lagunita
Mirada Sediment Basin, Lake El Estero,
Washerwoman’s Pond, Lower Ragsdale, and
Wilson as no suitable habitat is present at these
project sites.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 12 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 236, Packet Page 390

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
FE / -- / 1B Mesic areas of valley and foothill grassland, alkaline playas, cismontane woodland, and vernal
pools at elevations of 0-470 meters. Annual herb in
the Asteraceae family; blooms March-June.

Not Present
Suitable habitat is present at Harris, Lower
Ragsdale, and Wilson Detention Basins. This
species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during field visits to
the project sites.

This species is unlikely to occur at
Washerwoman’s Pond, Lagunita Mirada
Sediment Basin, and Lake El Estero as no
suitable habitat is present at these project sites.

Layia carnosa
Beach layia
FE / SE / 1B Coastal dunes and coastal scrub on sandy soils at elevations of 0-60 meters. Annual herb in the
Asteraceae family; blooms March-July.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites. Additionally, no
suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Legenere limosa
Legenere
--/--/1B Vernal pools and wetlands at elevations of 1-880 meters. Annual herb in the Campanulaceae family;
blooms April- June.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Lupinus tidestromii
Tidestrom’s lupine
FE / SE / 1B Coastal dunes at elevations of 0-100 meters.

Perennial rhizomatous herb in the Fabaceae
family; blooms April-June.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites. Additionally, no
suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Malacothamnus palmeri var.
involucratus
Carmel Valley bush-mallow
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub at elevations of 30-1100 meters. Perennial
deciduous shrub in the Malvaceae family; blooms
May-October.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during field visits to
the project sites.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 13 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 237, Packet Page 391

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Malacothrix saxatilis var.
arachnoidea
Carmel Valley malacothrix
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral and coastal scrub on rocky soils at elevations of 25-1036 meters. Perennial
rhizomatous herb in the Asteraceae family; blooms
June-December.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated. Additionally, Washerwoman’s Pond,
Lagunita Mirada, and Lake El Estero project
sites are outside of the elevation range of this
species.

Meconella oregana
Oregon meconella
-- / -- / 1B Coastal prairie and coastal scrub at elevations of 250-620 meters. Annual herb in the Papaveraceae
Family; blooms March-April.

Unlikely
project sites are outside of the elevation range
for this species.

Microseris paludosa -- / -- /1B Closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane Moderate Marsh microseris woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland at elevations of 5-300 meters. Perennial
herb in the Asteraceae family; blooms April-July.

Suitable habitat is present at Harris, Lower
Ragsdale, and Wilson Detention Basins. The
nearest CNDDB occurrence to these project
sites is an occurrence from 1997. This
occurrence is approximately 0.6 miles from
Lower Ragsdale, 0.9 miles from Harris, and 1
mile from Wilson Detention Basins. Marginal
Habitat is present at Washerwoman’s Pond.

This species is unlikely to occur at Lagunita
Mirada and Lake El Estero as no suitable
habitat is present at these project sites.

Monardella sinuata ssp. -- / -- /1B Chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and lower Unlikely nigrescens montane coniferous forest (ponderosa pine No suitable habitat is present at the project sites Northern curly-leaved sandhills) on sandy soils at elevations of 0-300 evaluated. monardella meters. Annual herb in the Lamiaceae family; blooms April-September.

Monolopia gracilens -- / -- / 1B Openings of broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, Not Present Woodland wollythreads cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland on
serpentinite soils at elevations of 100-1200 meters.

Annual herb in the Asteraceae family; blooms
February-July.

This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites. Additionally, the
project sites are outside of the elevation range
for this species.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 14 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 238, Packet Page 392

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Pinus radiata -- / -- / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest and cismontane Not Present Monterey pine woodland at elevations of 25-185 meters.

Evergreen tree in the Pinaceae family. Only three
native stands in CA at Ano Nuevo, Cambria, and
the Monterey Peninsula; introduced in many areas.

Lake El Estero, Washerwoman’s Pond, and
Lagunita Mirada are located within the
CNDDB occurrence of the estimated historic
range of the Monterey Pine in the area.

CNDDB occurrences of this species are within
the local vicinity of Harris, Lower Ragsdale,
and Wilson Detention Basins. No Monterey
Pine trees were observed within the study areas
of the project sites assessed during field visits.

Piperia yadonii FE / -- / 1B Sandy soils in coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone Not Present Yadon’s rein orchid coniferous forest, and maritime chaparral at elevations of 10-510 meters. Annual herb in the
Orchidaceae family; blooms February-August.

This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Plagiobothrys chorisianus var.
chorisianus
Choris’ popcorn-flower
-- / -- / 1B Mesic areas of chaparral, coastal prairie, and coastal scrub at elevations of 15-160 meters.

Annual herb in the Boraginaceae family; blooms
March-June.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Plagiobothrys uncinatus -- / -- / 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and valley and Not Present Hooked popcorn-flower foothill grasslands on sandy soils at elevations of 300-760 meters. Annual herb in the Boraginaceae
family; blooms April-May.

This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Potentilla hickmanii FE / SE / 1B Coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forests, Moderate Hickman’s cinquefoil vernally mesic meadows and seeps, and freshwater marshes and swamps at elevations of 10-149
meters. Perennial herb in the Rosaceae family;
blooms April-August.

Suitable habitat is present at all of the project
sites. Lake El Estero, Washerwoman’s Pond,
and Lagunita Mirada are included in the
boundary of a historic CNDDB occurrence
from 1900. This historic occurrence is also the
nearest occurrence to other project sites. This
CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.2 miles
from Harris, 3.3 miles from Lower Ragsdale,
and 4 miles from Wilson Detention Basins.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 15 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 239, Packet Page 393

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Ramalina thrausta
Angel’s hair lichen
-- / -- / 2B North coast coniferous forest on dead twigs and other lichens. Epiphytic fructose lichen in the
Ramalinaceae family. In northern CA it is usually
found on dead twigs, and has been found on Alnus
rubra, Calocedrus decurrens, Pseudotsuga
menziesii, Quercus garryana, and Rubus
spectabilis. In Sonoma County it grows on and
among dangling mats of R. menziesii and Usnea
spp.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Rosa pinetorum
Pine rose
-- / -- / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest at elevations of 2- 300 meters. Perennial shrub in the Rosaceae
family; blooms May-July. Possible hybrid of R.
spithamea, R. gymnocarpa, or others; further study
needed.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present at the project sites
evaluated.

Sidalcea malachroides
Maple-leaved checkerbloom
-- / -- / 4 Broadleaved upland forest, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, North Coast coniferous forest, and riparian
woodlands, often in disturbed areas, at elevations
of 2-730 meters. Perennial herb in the Malvaceae
family; blooms March-August.

Low
Suitable habitat is present at all of the project
sites. The nearest CNDDB occurrence to the
project sites is a historic occurrence from 1881
on the Monterey Peninsula.

Stebbinsoseris decipiens
Santa Cruz microseris
-- / -- / 1B Broadleaved upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and
openings in valley and foothill grassland,
sometimes on serpentinite, at elevations of 10-500
meters. Annual herb in the Asteraceae family;
blooms April-May.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 16 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 240, Packet Page 394

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Species
Status
(Service/
Department/CNPS)
General
Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity
Tortula californica
California screw moss
-- / -- / 1B Valley and foothill grassland and chenopod scrub on sandy soils at elevations of 10-1460 meters.

Moss in the Pottiaceae family.

Moderate
Suitable habitat is present at Harris and Lower
Ragsdale Detention Basins. Only one CNDDB
occurrence was reported within the USGS
quadrangles searched. This occurrence is
located more than 10 miles from the project
sites.

This species is unlikely to occur at
Washerwoman’s Pond, Lagunita Mirada, Lake
El Estero, and Wilson Detention Basin as no
suitable habitat is present at these project sites.

Trifolium buckwestiorum
Santa Cruz clover
-- / -- / 1B Gravelly margins of broadleaved upland forest, cismontane woodland, and coastal prairie at
elevations of 105-610 meters. Annual herb in the
Fabaceae family; blooms April-October.

Unlikely
The project sites are outside of the elevation
range for this species.

Trifolium hydrophilum
Saline clover
-- / -- / 1B Marshes and swamps, mesic and alkaline valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools at
elevations of 0-300 meters. Annual herb in the
Fabaceae family; blooms April-June.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Trifolium polyodon
Pacific Grove clover
-- / SR / 1B Mesic areas of closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, and valley and
foothill grassland at elevations of 5-120 meters.

Annual herb in the Fabaceae family; blooms AprilJuly.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Trifolium trichocalyx
Monterey clover
FE / SE / 1B Sandy openings and burned areas of closed-cone coniferous forest at elevations of 30-240 meters.

Annual herb in the Fabaceae family; blooms AprilJune.

Not Present
This species was not observed by DD&A
Environmental Scientist during botanical
surveys the project sites.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 17 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 241, Packet Page 395

City of Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project

STATUS DEFINITIONS
Federal
FE = listed as Endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act FT = listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act FC = Candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act -- = no listing
State
SE = listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act ST = listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act SR = listed as Rare under the California Endangered Species Act SC = Candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act CSC = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Concern CFP = California Fully Protected Animal
WL = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Watch List -- = no listing
California Native Plant Society
1B = California Rare Plant Rank 1B species; rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2B = California Rare Plant Rank 2B species; rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 4 = California Rare Plant Rank 4 Limited distribution (CNPS Watch List) -- = no listing

POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Present = known occurrence of species within the site; presence of suitable habitat conditions; or observed during field surveys High = known occurrence of species in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation; presence of suitable habitat conditions Moderate = known occurrence of species in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation; presence of marginal habitat conditions within the site Low = species known to occur in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation; lack of suitable habitat or poor quality Unlikely = species not known to occur in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation, no suitable habitat is present within the site Not Present = species was not observed during surveys
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 18 Special-Status Species Table ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 242, Packet Page 396

APPENDIX D
City of Monterey Detention Basin Management Project
Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 243, Packet Page 397

DETENTION BASIN MAINTENANCE PROJECT

WETLAND DELINEATION
JUNE 5, 2017
PREPARED BY:

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Contact: Josh Harwayne
947 Cass St. Suite 5
Monterey, California 93940
PREPARED FOR:

City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street, Room 7
Monterey California, 93940
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 244, Packet Page 398 Detention Basin Maintenance Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description................................................................................................................................. 1 Regulatory Background.......................................................................................................................... 8 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................. 10 Field Methods....................................................................................................................................... 11 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Soils...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Hydrology............................................................................................................................................. 12 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Harris Detention Basin .........................................................................................................................13 Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin ......................................................................................................... 16 Wilson Detention Basin........................................................................................................................ 19 Lake El Estero ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Washerwoman’s Pond..........................................................................................................................24 Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin ......................................................................................................... 27 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................... 30 Impacts................................................................................................................................................. 30 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 32 ATTACHMENT A: WETLAND DELINEATION DATASHEETS
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. i Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 245, Packet Page 399

Detention Basin Maintenance Project

FIGURES
FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2. PROJECT SITE MAP ............................................................................................................... 3 FIGURE 3. RYAN RANCH PROJECT SITES ...........................................................................................4 FIGURE 4. DOWNTOWN MONTEREY PROJECT SITES ...................................................................... 5 FIGURE 5. LAKE EL ESTERO – AREAS OF EMERGENT VEGETATION TO BE PRESERVED...... 7 FIGURE 6. HARRIS DETENTION BASIN WETLAND DELINEATION MAP.................................... 14 FIGURE 7. HARRIS DETENTION BASIN SOILS MAP ........................................................................ 15 FIGURE 8. LOWER RAGSDALE DETENTION BASIN WETLAND DELINEATION MAP.............. 17 FIGURE 9. LOWER RAGSDALE DETENTION BASIN SOILS MAP .................................................. 18 FIGURE 10. WILSON DETENTION BASIN WETLAND DELINEATION MAP................................. 20 FIGURE 11. WILSON DETENTION BASIN SOILS MAP ..................................................................... 21 FIGURE 12. LAKE EL ESTERO WETLAND DELINEATION MAP .................................................... 22 FIGURE 13. LAKE EL ESTERO SOILS MAP.........................................................................................23 FIGURE 14. WASHERWOMAN’S POND WETLAND DELINEATION MAP..................................... 25 FIGURE 15. WASHERWOMAN’S POND SOILS MAP ......................................................................... 26 FIGURE 16. LAGUNITA MIRADA SEDIMENT BASIN WETLAND DELINEATION MAP ............. 28 FIGURE 17. LAGUNITA MIRADA SEDIMENT BASIN SOILS MAP.................................................. 29 TABLES
TABLE 1: WETLAND VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM .................................................. 11 TABLE 2: APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF POTENTIALLY JURISDICTION WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS MAPPED WITHIN THE EVALUATION AREAS. ........................................... 30 TABLE 3: APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF POTENTIALLY JURISDICTION WETLANDS AND

OTHER WATERS WITHIN THE EVALUATION AREAS THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN YEAR 1. .........................................................................................31 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. ii Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 246, Packet Page 400

Detention Basin Maintenance Project

INTRODUCTION
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (DD&A) has been contracted by the City of Monterey (City) to prepare a wetland delineation for the Monterey Detention Basin Maintenance Project (proposed project), Monterey, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this wetland delineation is to map wetlands and other waters of the United States (waters) within the evaluation area of the proposed project, which have the potential to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE).

Project Description
The proposed project includes maintenance activities for six detention basins (project sites) located in the City of Monterey: Lake El Estero1
, Washerwoman’s Pond, Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin, Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin, Harris Detention Basin, and Wilson Detention Basin (Figure 2). The six detention basins identified as part of the proposed project capture and store stormwater runoff from surrounding areas. The capacity and function of these detention basins have been reduced by the presence of emergent vegetation and the accumulation of sediment. Additionally, some of the detention basins have associated infrastructure that requires upkeep and occasional repairs to function as intended. The proposed project involves management and maintenance activities by the City that would allow the intended function and capacity of these detention basins to be restored and maintained over a period of 15 years.

The Lower Ragsdale, Harris, and Wilson sites are located in the Ryan Ranch development (Figure 3).

Improvement plans for the Ryan Ranch Industrial Park from 1982 show the designed depths for these basins. Lake El Estero, Washerwoman’s Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin project sites are located in the downtown area of the City of Monterey (Figure 4). Plans were prepared and executed in 1984 as part of the El Estero Lake Restoration Project, indicating their designed depths.

The proposed project activities include dredging of all of the basins except Lake El Estero to restore their design depths. Washerwoman's Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin would be drained for maintenance activities, to work at the pipe inlets and the outlet head-walls. Proposed maintenance activities at all of the basins would include: vegetation management/removal; trash removal; and inspection and repair of infrastructure as needed.2 In addition, installation of specific erosion control structures are proposed at Lake El Estero as described below. Sediment, trash, and green waste generated by the proposed project would be disposed of properly at the Marina Dump. Project activities are discussed in more detail in the text below.

Sediment Removal
Sediment removal would consist of a few different approaches and equipment types. Where access is available, sediment shall be removed by an excavator or drag bucket from the bank of the detention basin.

Alternatively, detention basins may be dredged by floating equipment. For the majority of the basins the dredging would occur with water in the pond. However, for the initial work in year 1, Washerwoman's Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin will be drained prior to the dredging, and then graded with heavy equipment to match the original design depths. Draining of the two detention basins referenced above for sediment removal purposes will occur only once, in year 1. All dredged materials shall be 1 Lake El Estero is not strictly a detention basin as it has additional function and value in regard to recreation and esthetics.

However, for the purposes of this document, it is included as one of six basins within the City that require maintenance because they retain sediment and associated vegetation over time. 2 The water surface elevation at Washerwoman’s Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin may be lowered or drained on occasion to facilitate the proposed project activities, including the inspection and repair of infrastructure.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 1 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 247, Packet Page 401

Ao . ro,
n,h ul
untr Club
Del onte
For st
§ "'
.. a
p..-
1tCIIJb H
CJ
Pebbl
Beach
Fresno 0
~ .. .,,
Q 91,
.. Pacific ..e Grove
Carmel -bythe-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Fort Ord
N 1o,n I
l,bnument
1111 a
Mun t I
Aui:,,11
rt Old
N tonal
lvlonu n1
un
e
f
u

7. tl. b
i,,£ ~ \\I CtJ ~ .,,,, ., a,-c;
N
A
Downtown Monterey
Project Sites
Ryan Ranch
Project Sites
0 1 2 Miles
0 2 4 Kilometers
on 20160415.mxd
Title:

Detention Basin Management Project
Location Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 1.97 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
1 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat Assessment\Figure 1 - 8x11 Locati ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 248, Packet Page 402

I I
Title:

Detention Basin Management Project
Project Site Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.46 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
2 Washerwoman's
Pond
Lagunita
Mirada
Harris
Wilson
Lake El
Estero
Lower
Ragsdale

0.25 0.5 Miles

0.5 Kilometers
Project Sites
0 0 1
Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat Assessment\Figure 2 - 8x11 Project Sites 20160415.mxd ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 249, Packet Page 403

PWflo Gr0te j Seaside
•• ,~...,EJ
Harris
Wilson
Lower
Ragsdale
Harris Ct
Lower Ragsdale Dr
York Rd
Wilson Rd
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Proj
68 Project Sites
tes 20170310.mxd
250 500 ft
100 200
t Si
0 0 m
Title:

Detention Basin Management Project
Ryan Ranch Project Sites
Date: March 10, 2017
Scale: 1 inch = 0.13 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
3 ects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat Assessment\Figure 3 - 8x11 Ryan Ranch Projec ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 250, Packet Page 404 Fremont St
Pearl St
Del Monte Ave
Via Mirada
Aguajito Rd
1 Washerwoman's
Pond
Lagunita
Mirada
Lake El
Estero

Project Sites
0 250 500 ft Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 100 200 m Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Proj t Sites 20160415.mxd
Title:

Detention Basin Management Project
Downtown Area Project Sites
Date:

Scale: 1
Project:

March 10, 2017
inch = 0.11 miles
2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
4 ects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat Assessment\Figure 4 - 8x11 Downtown Area Projec ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 251, Packet Page 405

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
hauled off-site and deposited at the Marina Dump.

Vegetation Management
Vegetation management shall include removal of emergent vegetation within the detention basins.

Vegetation shall be removed with a combination of hand equipment, when necessary around and adjacent to sensitive infrastructure, and heavy equipment such as a backhoe. As the vast majority of the emergent vegetation within the detention basins is rooted in accumulated sediment, the vast majority of the vegetation removal will occur concurrently with the sediment removal as described above and will be a byproduct of that activity. Vegetation removal in the first year (year 1) will include removal of 50% of the vegetation at all of the detention basins except Washerwoman’s Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin; these two detention basins will be drained and regraded in the first year, resulting in the removal of all of the existing wetland vegetation at those two project sites. In subsequent years, only 50% of the vegetation would be removed every two years at all of the detention basins. Additional trimming and mowing shall occur in adjacent uplands when the basins are in park or urban settings. All vegetation removed will be hauled off site and disposed of at the Marina Landfill.

Lake El Estero
The Lake El Estero project site is located in the City of Monterey in an area between Del Monte Avenue and Fremont Street (Figure 4). Lake El Estero is the largest project site, at approximately 19.5 acres, and holds water year round. Maintenance activities at Lake El Estero differ from the other proposed project sites. Annual maintenance at Lake El Estero would consist of the following activities:
 Removal of emergent vegetation3
 Management of erosion as needed along the eastern shore of the east finger through the installation of gabion cages (less than 200 feet per year)  Trash removal and maintenance of vegetation in upland areas around the lake  Any necessary repairs to aeration system (e.g. replacing broken sections)  Dropping the elevation of the lake 3 to 4 feet in preparation of large storm events  Dropping the elevation of the lake 3 to 4 feet, as needed, to conduct maintenance on utilities that run under the Pearl Street bridges and to work on any of the inlets that come into the lake, the lake edge walls, or gabion cages
 Inspection of existing infrastructure and conducting repairs as necessary  Inspection of existing areas of rock wall around the perimeter of the lake and repairing/replacing as necessary
During the first year of maintenance activities vegetation removal would occur to unblock stormwater drainage inlets. Consistent with the 1984 El Estero Lake Restoration Plans, the City would preserve two large areas (approximately 0.36 acres) of emergent vegetation, one patch in the west lake near the playground and another on the western bank of the east finger (Figure 5). In years following the initial maintenance activities, emergent vegetation removal would consist of maintaining these preserved areas of emergent vegetation. Emergent vegetation outside of the preserved areas would be removed from Lake El Estero using a barge-mounted backhoe attachment and a standard backhoe operated from the shore as needed. Trash removal and maintenance of vegetation in upland areas around the lake would occur throughout the year, on a weekly basis.

Erosion can be an issue along portions of the perimeter of the lake and maintenance activities would include addressing/managing erosion as needed. Management of erosion along the east side of the east finger of the lake would consist of extending existing areas of gabion cages along the bank at a rate of 3 A minimum of approximately 0.36 acres of emergent vegetation will be maintained within Lake El Estero for the duration of the proposed project.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 6 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 252, Packet Page 406 Park
3rd
Franklin
Webster
2nd
8th
Alma
1st
Del Monte
Via
Mirada
Cortes
Camino El Estero
Camino Aguajito
Fremont
Fishnet
Figueroa
Mesa
Robinson
Ocean
7th
4th
Ta
Pearl
Lake
Anthony
6th
5th
Perry
Church
Fremont
n

Fra
n
kl
ufner
i

Lake El Estero Project Site
Areas of Emergent Vegetation to be Preserved
0 250 500 ft
0 100 200 m
Title: Lake El Estero Detention Basin
Areas of Emergent Vegetation
to be Preserved
Date: March 29, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.06 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
5 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Habitat Assessment\Figure 5 - 8x11 Lake El Estero 20160415.mxd ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 253, Packet Page 407

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
approximately less than 200 hundred feet per year. Installation of these cages would involve removing emergent vegetation that may be present within the installation area and creating a shelf in the soil on which the gabion cage would sit. The gabion cage would be entirely submerged, and not visible above the water surface. The gabion cages would be installed on an as-needed basis and only if significant erosion was identified. Additional erosion management activities would include maintaining existing areas of rock wall. Maintenance of the rock wall would consist of repairing or, if necessary, replacing sections as needed to maintain the intended function of the wall. Additional activities include inspection and maintenance of utilities that run under the Pearl Street bridges and inlets to the lake. Materials removed as part of these maintenance activities would be stockpiled off-site and then disposed of at a landfill or other appropriate off-site location. The surface elevation of the lake would be reduced, as needed, by no more than four feet to enable the maintenance activities described above.

Dropping the water surface level in the lake would occur prior to large rain events. The number of times the lake level would be dropped in preparation of a large rain event will vary between years. A number of factors including intensity of rainfall events, timing of rainfall events, and the condition of soils prior to the rain event (i.e. saturation level), would affect the number of times the water level would need to be dropped each year.

Inspections and repairs of the pump inlet and gravity inlet located in the forebay of Lake El Estero would also occur as part of the proposed project. As the pump inlet and the inlet to the gravity line are submerged, the inspection and repairs of these inlets would be completed using a cofferdam. The cofferdam allows for a dry area in which the inspection and any necessary repairs could occur. The dewatering would occur twice, once to conduct the inspection and then once to conduct the repairs, as the cofferdam would be allowed to refill with water while materials for the repairs are being fabricated.

Gravel to a depth of two feet would be placed on the bottom of the dry side of the cofferdam. Once the water has been dropped by the initial dewatering, the dry side of the cofferdam would be maintained by a sump pump that would pump out the water collecting in the gravel. It is estimated that repairs would take approximately a week to complete once the materials were available. During repairs, the dry side would be maintained by the sump pump running continuously. For both the initial dewatering and the water removed by the sump pump the water would be pumped into a sanitary sewer line by way of a manhole located in a parking lot area, approximately 40-feet from the Lake El Estero pump structure. Each initial dewatering event would divert approximately 35,900 gallons of water. Operation of the sump pump at approximately 3 gallons/minute for a week (the expected duration of the repairs) would result in the diversion of approximately 30,000 gallons of water. As the pump inlet and inlet to the gravity line are located in different sections of the forebay, the cofferdam would be installed within the lake at each location no more than once every five years. All non-native materials temporarily placed on the dry side of the cofferdam would be removed prior to the removal of the cofferdam.

Regulatory Background
The ACOE is the primary federal agency responsible for regulating wetlands and waters.

Wetlands
The ACOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly define wetlands as:
“Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (ACOE 1982; EPA 1980).

ACOE provides technical guidelines on wetland delineation in The Field Guide for Wetland Delineation:
1987 Corps of Engineers Manual (Wetland Manual) (Wetland Training Institute, 2002). The Wetland Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 8 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 254, Packet Page 408

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Manual describes the three environmental parameters used in delineating jurisdictional wetlands. The three parameters are:

1. Vegetation. The prevalent vegetation consists of macrophytes that are typically adapted to areas having hydrologic and soil conditions described in the definition of a wetland above. Hydrophytic species, due to morphological, physiological, and/or reproductive adaptation(s), have the ability to grow effectively, compete, reproduce, and/or persist in anaerobic soil conditions;

2. Soil. Soils are present and have been classified as hydric or they possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions; and

3. Hydrology. The area is inundated either permanently or periodically at mean water depths of ≤

6.6 feet, or the soil is saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season of the prevalent vegetation.

For an area to be considered a wetland under ACOE guidelines, all three parameters (vegetation, soils, or hydrology, as defined by the ACOE) must be met. However, climatic and hydrologic conditions in the Arid West often make it difficult to identify wetland indicators. The 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (Supplement) (ACOE, 2008) provides indicators for each parameter that are specific to the Arid West region and is used in conjunction with the Wetland Manual.

Waters
Waters are defined as:

1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;

3. All “other waters” such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;

4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;

5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs [1-4] of this section;

6. The territorial seas;

7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs [1-6] of this section (ACOE, 1982).

As noted above, “other waters,” including lakes, ponds, and streams, are subject to ACOE jurisdiction. “Other waters” are characterized by an ordinary high water (OHW) mark, which is defined as:
“that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the characteristics of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (ACOE, 1982).

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 9 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 255, Packet Page 409

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
In the field, “other waters” are identified by the presence of a defined river or stream bed, a bank, and evidence of the flow of water.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction
On June 5, 2007, the ACOE and the EPA developed a Memorandum Regarding Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos v. United States which states that the agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following categories of water bodies:
 TNWs [traditional navigable waters] and wetlands adjacent to TNWs and  Non-navigable tributaries of TNWs that are relatively permanent (i.e., the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally) and wetlands that directly abut such tributaries
In addition, the following waters will also be found jurisdictional based on a fact-specific analysis that they have a significant nexus with a TNW:
 Non-navigable tributaries that do not typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally;
 Wetlands adjacent to such tributaries; and
 Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent nonnavigable tributary A significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or an insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical, and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Principal considerations when evaluating significant nexus include the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and the proximity of the tributary to a TNW, plus the hydrologic, ecologic, and other functions performed by the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands” (ACOE & EPA, 2007).

The term “navigable waters of the U.S.” is defined to include:
“all those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce” (ACOE, 1982).

METHODS
This wetland and waters delineation was conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in both the Wetland Manual and the Supplement, as appropriate. Prior to conducting field surveys, available reference materials were reviewed, including the National Wetlands Inventory Wetland Mapper (Service 2015), the Soil Survey for Monterey County (USDA-NRCS 1978), the list of Hydric Soils of the United States (USDA 2014), the Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS 2016), and aerial photographs of the site.

Six (6) detention basins were assessed. Delineations were conducted between January and April, 2016 by DD&A Environmental Scientists. The methods for delineating wetlands and waters are described in detail below.

The delineation of potential federal wetlands and waters within Lake El Estero, Washerwoman’s Pond, Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin, and Wilson Detention Basin were prepared using aerial images during extensive field visits to the project sites. It was determine in the field that the boundaries of these features were sufficiently evident to the experienced delineators to preclude the need for field data related to soils, hydrology, and vegetation beyond detailed visual assessment. In fact, due to the steepness of the banks of these man-made and maintained basins, data collection was precluded in many locations and would have Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 10 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 256, Packet Page 410

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
resulted in points in open water or upland cut banks. In all situations, if there was any question as to the presence of potential wetlands, the areas were included and mapped as potentially jurisdiction.

Field Methods
For Harris Detention Basin and Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin the data collected during the field surveys were recorded on Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Arid West Region (Attachment B) provided in the Supplement. Data collected at each sampling point was analyzed to determine if wetlands and other waters under the jurisdiction of ACOE were potentially present. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology were assessed following the guidelines detailed in the Wetland Manual and Supplement. For an area to be considered a wetland under ACOE guidelines, all three parameters must be met. Indicators described in the Wetland Manual and Supplement, used to make wetland determinations at each sampling point are discussed below.

Vegetation
The Wetland Manual defines “hydrophytic vegetation” as:
“…the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present.” Vegetation was broken into four strata for evaluation: tree, sapling/shrub, herb, and woody vines.

Dominant plant species and approximate percent cover were recorded for each stratum. Plant species were identified using The Plants of Monterey County; an Illustrated Field Guide – Second Edition (Matthews and Mitchell, 2015), and were assigned a wetland status according to the Arid West 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (ACOE, 2014). This wetland classification system is based on the expected frequency of occurrence in wetlands as described in Table 2-1.

Table 1: Wetland Vegetation Classification System
Symbol Indicator Category Definition Frequency of
Occurrences
OBL Obligate Wetland Plants Always found in wetlands >99% FACW Facultative Wetland Plants Most often occur in wetlands 67-99% FAC Facultative Plants Equal likelihood of occurring in wetlands and non-wetlands 33-67%
FACU Facultative Upland Plants Most often occur in non-wetlands 1-33% UPL Obligate Upland Plants Always found in non-wetlands <1% NL Not Listed (Assumed Upland)
The “dominance test”, as described in the Supplement, was applied for each survey point. If greater than 50 percent of the dominant plant species across all strata were rated OBL, FACW, or FAC, then the plant community “passed” the dominance test and the vegetation was determined to be hydrophytic. Neither the prevalence test nor morphological adaptation indicators were used, as the conditions described in the manual for each were absent (i.e., plant community failing the dominance test with presence of both hydric soil and wetland hydrology).

Soils
The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) defines a hydric soil as:

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 11 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 257, Packet Page 411

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
“A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (USDANRCS 1995).

The soil at each survey point was evaluated by digging a 18-inch hole, when possible, and identifying soil horizons, color, and texture, as well as any hydric soil indicators (as described in the Supplement). Soil color was evaluated by comparing a small wetted piece of soil to Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2009). The last digit of the Munsell Soil Notation refers to the chroma of the sample. This notation consists of numbers beginning with 0 for neutral grays and increasing at equal intervals to a maximum of about 20. Munsell values for each soil sample were compared to the requirements for Soil Indicators specific to the Supplement to determine if hydric soils were present at the sampling point.

Hydrology
The Wetland Manual defines “wetland hydrology” as:
“Encompassing all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions, respectively. Such characteristics are usually present in areas that are inundated or have soils that are saturated to the surface for sufficient duration to develop hydric soils and support vegetation typically adapted for life in periodically anaerobic soil conditions.”
Each sampling point was evaluated for wetland hydrology using the indicators described in the Supplement. Evidence of one Primary Indicator sufficiently identified wetland hydrology. Two or more Secondary Indicators were necessary to identify wetland hydrology if no Primary Indicators were observed.

In the Arid West, the lack of a hydrologic indicator does not always signify the absence of wetland hydrology. As stated in the Supplement, the Arid West is characterized by extended dry seasons in most years and by extreme temporal and special variability in rainfall, causing many wetlands in the region to be dry for much of the year. During the extended dry season, hydrology indicators may be lacking altogether at a difficult or problematic site. Guidance is provided in the Supplement for difficult wetland situations such as this.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 12 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 258, Packet Page 412

Detention Basin Maintenance Project

RESULTS
Harris Detention Basin
A total of 10 sampling points were taken at Harris Detention Basin.

Vegetation
The upland area around the Harris Detention Basin consisted of a maintained disk golf course in an oak savanna with a non-native grassland understory. The basin contained emergent and submergent vegetation. This site was evaluated January 27, 2016. It was too early in the growing season to identify grasses present within the site.

Riparian vegetation consisting of a willow (Salix sp.) was present in a depression located along the northern and eastern sides of the detention basin. A patch of cattails (Typha sp.) was also present in the depression.

Hydrophytic vegetation was present at sampling points 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 (Figure 6). Vegetation within the wetland area of the detention basin included tall cyperus (Cyperus eragrostis, FACW), brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus, FACW), baltic rush (Juncus balticus, FACW), dock (Rumex sp.), rye grass (Festuca perennis, FAC), and cut-leaved plantain (Plantago coronopus, FACW). Where water was ponded at the time of the evaluation area, sample point 8, vegetation present included an unknown submerged species, cut-leaved plantain, and manna grass (Glyceria sp.).

The southeastern portion of the basin and the upland area directly adjacent to most of the basin was sparsely vegetated. Vegetation present in the sparsely vegetated areas included cut-leaved plantain, white-stemmed filaree (Erodium moschatum, NL), and common toad rush (Juncus bufonius, FACW).

Soils
The Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS 2016) identified one soil mapping unit within the Harris Detention Basin evaluation area (Figure 7). An abbreviated description of the soil type is presented below.

Narlon Loamy Fine Sand, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes
These soils are a gently to moderately sloping soil on dissected marine terraces. In a representative profile, the surface layer is a gray, medium acidic, loamy, fine sand about three inches thick. The subsurface layer is a white, mottled, slightly to medium acidic, loamy, fine sand approximately 10 inches thick. The subsoil is an approximately 40-inch thick light brownish gray to light gray, mottled, very strongly acidic clay. This soil is classified as hydric for Monterey County.

The soils present at the Harris Detention Basin were problematic and significantly disturbed. The basin was dug in an upland area. The hardness of the soil made it difficult to dig at some of the sampling locations. Orange inclusions from sedimentation of the parent material were present. Soils at sampling point 8 were not assessed to avoid disturbing amphibian eggs present in the standing water. Soil texture present within the site included silty sand, organic silt, and bed rock.

Hydrology
Harris Detention Basin is a basin dug in an upland area. This detention basin likely supports standing surface water only during the wet season in normal years and only during storm events in dryer years. Stormwater runoff from the adjacent areas is conveyed to the basin as surface runoff or through two inlets, one on the north corner and one in the east corner of the basin. Water surface elevation in this detention basin was controlled by an outlet located in the south-eastern corner of the basin. A hole in the base of the outfall structure was present at the lowest point in the basin. Due to the configuration of the outlet, the distribution of wetland habitat present within the basin was driven by the topography of the basin and the location of the inlets. A small area surrounded by wetland, characterized by point 6, lacked wetland hydrology (Figure 6).

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 13 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 259, Packet Page 413 10 1
2 9
8 7
6 5
4 3

D
•
-
I ~\ Del Re
• •
Evaluation Area
Wetland Delineation Points
Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands (0.22 ac)
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., 0 75 150 ft NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, 0 25 50 m USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community and Maps\Figure 6 - 8x11 Harris 20160415.mxd
Title:

Harris Detention Basin
Wetland Delineation Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.01 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
6 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Wetl ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 260, Packet Page 414

D
N
A •
Evaluation Area

NARLON LOAMY
FINE SAND, 2 TO
9 PERCENT SLOPES
0 75 150 ft Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 25 50 m Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community s Map\Figure 7 - 8x11 Harris 20160415.mxd
Title:

Harris Detention Basin
Soils Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.01 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
7 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Soil ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 261, Packet Page 415

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin
A total of six sampling points were taken within the Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin evaluation area. The evaluation area at the Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin consists of a silt basin and adjacent upland area.

Vegetation
The upland area within the evaluation area consists of an oak savanna with a non-native grass understory. Plant species present in the upland area included non-native upland grasses, Italian thistle, dove’s foot geranium (Geranium molle, NL), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium, NL), bur-clover (Medicago polymorpha, FACU), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum, FACW), and cut-leaved plantain (Plantago coronopus, FACW).

Sample points 17, 19, and 21 were collected in the upland portion of the evaluation area (Figure 8).

Vegetation present within the silt basin included pale spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), tall cyperus (Cyperus eragrostis), dock, and spreading rush (Juncus patens, FACW). A small portion of a channel that conveys water from Lower Ragsdale Road to the silt basin is included in the evaluation area.

Soils
The Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS 2016) identified one soil mapping unit within the Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin evaluation area (Figure 9). An abbreviated description of the soil type is presented below.

Santa Ynez Fine Sandy Loam, 15 to 30 Percent Slopes
A hilly soil found on dissected terraces. In a typical profile for this soil type the top layer is 16 inches thick and is made up of grayish brown and gray, medium acidic fine sandy loam. The subsurface layer is 2 inches thick and consists of light brownish gray, medium acid fine sandy loam. The subsoil 25 inches thick and is gray and grayish brown, medium acid to mild alkaline clay and clay loam. The runoff rate is rapid, and the erosion hazard is high. This soil is not classified as hydric for Monterey County.

Soils at this site had a high potential to be disturbed, as the site is a managed detention basin. Soils with low chroma were observed at sampling points 21 and 22. Soil textures found at the site included silty sand, sandy loam, and silty loam.

Hydrology
Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin is part of the City of Monterey stormwater system. A drop system is used to convey water from culverts near Lower Ragsdale Rd. down the steep terrain to the silt basin. Water flows from the silt basin within the evaluation area to a basin located downstream. The silt basin within the evaluation area is separated from the downstream basin by a concrete wall and exposed rock. Hydrological indicators present at sampling points within the site included the presence of a high water table and/or saturation. Wetland hydrology was identified at sampling points 18, 20, 21, and 22 (Figure 8).

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 16 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 262, Packet Page 416 Highway 68
Lower Ragsdale Dr
17 21
22 19
20 18

Evaluation Area
Concrete Wall
Wetland Delineation Points
Potential Other Waters of the U.S. (>0.01 ac)
Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands (0.24 ac)
0 100 200 ft
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 30 60 m Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community and Maps\Figure 8 - 8x11 Lower Ragsdale 20170406.mxd
Title:

Lower Ragsdale Detent
Wetland Delineation Map
ion Basin
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.02 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
8 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Wetl ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 263, Packet Page 417 Highway 68
Lower Ragsdale Dr

SANTA YNEZ FINE
SANDY LOAM, 15 TO 30

PERCENT SLOPES

N ~
I Sea,ide ,,
·~ , on~ y Del Re
A"" I ==_le I I
Evaluation Area
0 100 200 ft Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, 0 30 60 m USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community s Map\Figure 9 - 8x11 Lower Ragsdale 20170406.mxd
Title:

Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin
Soils Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.02 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
9 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Soil ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 264, Packet Page 418

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Wilson Detention Basin
Vegetation
Wilson Detention Basin was located within disturbed oak woodland (Figure 10). French broom (Genista monspessulana) was the dominant vegetation in the understory and the top of bank. Sediment and vegetation present within the detention basin was generally present at the same elevation as the water surface. Vegetation along the water margin on the north-eastern portion of the detention basin consisted mostly of California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus). Tall cyperus with patches of bulrush and cattails were the dominant vegetation present within the detention basin.

Soils
The Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS 2016) identified one soil mapping unit within the Wilson Detention Basin evaluation area (Figure 11). An abbreviated description of the soil type is presented below.

Elder Very Fine Sandy Loam, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes
This well drained soil formed in alluvium resulting from granitic and sedimentary rock. In a representative profile the surface layer is grayish brown, slightly acid and dark brown, neutral sandy loam about 37 inches thick. The underlying material is yellowish brown, mildly alkaline stratified fine gravely sandy loam and fine gravely loamy course sand. Sandstone or shale is present at a depth of 40 to 72 inches. This soil is not classified as hydric for Monterey County.

Hydrology
Wilson Detention Basin is an instream feature. A creek flows into the detention basin from on the eastern end of the pond, and an outfall is present on the western end of the pond. The water surface elevation in the pond was controlled by the outfall. Wilson Detention Basin is part of the City of Monterey stormwater system.

Lake El Estero
Vegetation
The upland area at Lake El Estero consisted of maintained park that includes some development (Figure 12). The edge of the lake was well defined with some emergent vegetation. Wetland habitat present at the site consisted of emergent vegetation bordering the open water of the lake. Emergent vegetation present at the site included bulrush and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus).

Soils
The Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS 2016) identified two soil mapping units within the Lake El Estero evaluation area (Figure 13). Abbreviated descriptions of each soil type are presented below.

Narlon Loamy Fine Sand, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes
Please see soil description provided for Harris Detention Basin above.

Baywood Sands, 2 to 15 Percent Slopes
This somewhat excessively drained soil was formed in stabilized sand dunes. In a representative profile of this soil, the surface layer is approximately 21 inches thick, grayish brown and brown, slightly acidic and medium acid sand. Baywood sand is not classified as a hydric soil for Monterey County.

Hydrology
Water flows from Lake El Estero to Monterey Bay through pipe culverts. Lake El Estero is fed by four tributary streams and a portion of the City of Monterey’s stormwater system (including Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin and Washerwoman’s Pond) (Schaaf & Wheeler, 2014).

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 19 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 265, Packet Page 419 York Rd
Blue Larkspur Ln
Wilson Rd

Evaluation Area
Potential Jurisditional Wetland (0.17 ac)
0 75 150 ft Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 25 50 m Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community and Maps\Figure 10 - 8x11 Wilson 20160415.mxd
Title:

Wilson Detention Basin
Wetland Delineation Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.01 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
10 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Wetl ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 266, Packet Page 420 York Rd
Blue Larkspur Ln
Wilson Rd

ELDER VERY FINE
SANDY LOAM, 2 TO
9 PERCENT SLOPES

N
A ;• < I
I , ...... ~
1 y ··:

I let I I
Evaluation Area
0 75 150 ft
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 25 50 m Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community s Map\Figure 11 - 8x11 Wilson 20160415.mxd
Title:

Wilson Detention Basin
Soils Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.01 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
11 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Soil ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 267, Packet Page 421 Del Monte Ave
Franklin
St
7th
St
10th
St
Perry
Ln
6th
St
4th St
3rd St
Webster St
5th St
Taufner
Ln
2nd St
Rd
Mesa Rd
Cortes St
Robinson St
1st St
Camino
Ag
uajito
Lake St
E Pearl St
Fis
Anthony St
E Franklin St
Camino El Estero
Fremont St
Pearl St
V

Iris
Canyon
ia Mirada Rd
hnet Rd

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Evaluation Area
Potential Other Waters of the U.S. (17.21 ac)
0 150 300 ft
Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands (1.22 ac) 0 50 100 m
Title: Monterey | San Jose
Date: April 15, 2016 Figure Lake El Estero Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Wetland Delineation Scale: 1 inch = 0.05 miles Environmental Consultants Resource Planners 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 12 Map Project: 2013-65 760 Monterey, CA 93940 (831) 373-4341
Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Wetland Maps\Figure 12 - 8x11 Portrait Lake El Estero 20160415 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 268, Packet Page 422 R
L

erry
n
Mesa
Fishnet Rd

D
-
D
-
,Seas, e c,
MliilterfY Del Rey
ii,
2 A'lo'>~ -im--11
Del Monte Ave
Franklin
St
Taufner
Iris
Canyon
Rd
a Mirada Rd
S
h
t
i V
7th
St
10t
6th
St
4th St
3rd St
Webster
St
5th St
Ln
2nd St
Cortes St
Robinson St
1st St
Camino
Ag
uajito
Lake St
E Pearl St
Anthony St
E Franklin St
Fremont St
Camino El Estero
Pearl St
P
d
0 150 300 ft
0 50 100 m
Evaluation Area
BAYWOOD SAND, 2 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES
NARLON LOAMY FINE SAND, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES
WATER
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Title: Monterey | San Jose
Date: April 15, 2016 Figure Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. Lake El Estero Scale: 1 inch = 0.05 miles Environmental Consultants Resource Planners Soils Map 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 13 Monterey, CA 93940 (831) 373-4341
Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Soils Map\Figure 13 - 8x11 Portrait Lake El Estero 20160415.mxd Project: 2013-65 760
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 269, Packet Page 423

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Washerwoman’s Pond
Vegetation
Washerwoman’s Pond is in an urban setting and is largely surrounded by paved roads (Figure 14). The detention basin is surrounded by a disturbed/planted habitat, which creates an upland buffer area between the detention basin and roads. At Washerwoman’s Pond, the detention basin was well defined with steep banks. Fringe wetlands were present along the edge of the detention basin. Dominant plant species present within the fringe wetland areas include bulrush, common rush (Juncus effusus), horsetail (Equisetum sp.), willows (Salix sp.), smartweed (Persicaria sp.), dock, and cut-leaved water parsnip (Berula erecta). A large stand of bulrush, was also present in a portion of the detention basin.

Non-native weed species were the dominant vegetation in the upland area. Species present included soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut grass, French broom, barley (Hordeum marinum), cut-leaved plantain (Plantago coronopus), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), rattail sixweeks grass (Festuca myuros), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis per-caprae), sweet-clover (Melilotus sp.), bur-clover, and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). Some native species are present in the upland, including dock, California blackberry, and Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa).

Soils
The Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS 2016) identified two soil mapping units within the Washerwoman’s Pond evaluation area (Figure 15). Abbreviated descriptions of each soil type are presented below.

Baywood Sand, 2 to 15 Percent Slopes
Please see soil description provided for Lake El Estero above.

Xerothents, Loamy
This soil type is well drained. A steep soil typically found on bluffs and bank along major rivers, on escarpments of terraces, on fans or alluvial plains, and along drainages. These soils are loams, silt loams, clay loams, and clays. The runoff rate and potential erosion hazard vary for this soil type. This soil is not classified as hydric for Monterey County.

Hydrology
The outlet structure controlled the water surface elevation in the detention basin. Washerwoman’s Pond is a silt pond for lake El Estero. Water from Washerwoman’s Pond is conveyed under the street to Lake El Estero. Two tributaries feed into Washerwoman’s Pond. Washerwoman’s Pond is part of the City of Monterey storm water system.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 24 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 270, Packet Page 424 Glenwood Cir
Via Lavandera
Camino Aguajito
Costanoan Dr
k
Par
Av
e
10th St

o~ er Y
A
"'o2
:..

Del Re
D
-
-
I I
Evaluation Area
Potential Other Waters of the U.S. (0.44 ac)
Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands (0.31 ac)
0 75 150 ft
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., 0 25 50 m NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Proj \Wetland Maps\Figure 14 - 8x11 Washerwoman s Pond 20160415.mxd Title:

Washerwoman's Pond
Wetland Delineation Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.02 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
'
Figure
14 ects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 271, Packet Page 425 Hwy 1
Park
Ave

I ===_le
Glenwood Cir
Via Lavandera
10th St
Camino Aguajito
Costanoan Dr
BAYWOOD SAND, 2
TO 15 PERCENT
SLOPES

XERORTHENTS,
LOAMY
Evaluation Area
0 75 150 ft
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., 0 25 50 m NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community s Map\Figure 15 - 8x11 Washerwoman s Pond 20160415.mxd
Title:

Washerwoman's Pond
Soils Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.02 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
'
Figure
15 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Soil ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 272, Packet Page 426

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin
Vegetation
Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin is in an urban setting and is adjacent to the Monterey Museum of Art and paved roads (Figure 16). The upland area surrounding the detention basin area consisted of a park like setting with a path, and non-native or horticultural species were dominant in open areas. Species present in the upland area included, pride of Madera (Echium spp.), greater periwinkle (Vinca major), scarlet pimpernel, rip-gut grass, burclover, rattail sixweeks grass, french broom, hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), dock, plectritis (Plectritis sp.), milk thistle ( Silybum marianum), and english ivy (Hedera helix).

At Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin, the detention basin was well defined with steep banks in most places. A small band of fringe wetlands were present along the edge of the detention basin. These wetlands were approximately six inches wide, but expand where the slope is less steep between the upland and the pond, and where emergent vegetation occurred. The fringe wetland areas included large patches of yellow flag iris and cattails (Typha sp.), as well as alder trees (Alnus sp.), willows, and cottonwood (Populus sp.). The pond was impacted by sediment deposits which are colonized by emergent vegetation. Sediment deposition within the detention basin was allowing the fringe wetland area to expand.

Soils
The Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS 2016) identified two soil mapping units within the Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin evaluation area (Figure 17). Abbreviated descriptions of each soil type are presented below.

Narlon Loamy Fine Sand, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes
Please see soil description provided for Harris Detention Basin above.

Xerorthents, Loamy
Please see soil description provided for Washerwoman’s Pond above.

Hydrology
Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin is a maintained open water pond. A creek flows into Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin. The banks of the detention basin were steep and well defined in most places. The outlet structure controlled the water surface elevation in the detention basin. Water from Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin is conveyed under the street to Lake El Estero. Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin is part of the City of Monterey stormwater system.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 27 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 273, Packet Page 427 Iris Canyon Rd
Fremont St
Mesa Rd
Fremont St
Via Mirada Rd
Fishnet Rd

I ==_le
D
-
-
I I
Evaluation Area
Potential Other Waters of the U.S. (0.28 ac)
Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands (0.34 ac)
0 50 100 ft Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 15 30 m Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Proj \Wetland Maps\Figure 16 - 8x11 Lagunita Mirada 20160415.mxd Title:

Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin
Wetland Delineation Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.01 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
16 ects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 274, Packet Page 428 Iris Canyon Rd
Fremont St
Mesa Rd
Fremont St
Via Mirada Rd
Fishnet Rd

NARLON LOAMY
FINE SAND, 2 TO
9 PERCENT SLOPES

XERORTHENTS,
LOAMY

I ==_le I I
Evaluation Area
0 50 100 ft
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © 0 15 30 m OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community rada 20160415.mxd
Title:

Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin
Soils Map
Date: April 15, 2016
Scale: 1 inch = 0.01 miles
Project: 2013-65 760
Monterey | San Jose
Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants Resource Planners
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Mont
(831
erey, CA 93940
) 373-4341
Figure
17 Document Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2013-65 City of Monterey On-Call\Detention Basin\Soils Map\Figure 17 - 8x11 Lagunita Mi ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 275, Packet Page 429

Detention Basin Maintenance Project

CONCLUSION
Portions of each evaluation area were identified as having wetlands and/or other waters. Approximately

2.5 acres of wetlands and approximately 17.93 acres of other waters of the U.S. potentially under the jurisdiction of the ACOE were identified within the evaluation areas (Table 2).

Table 2: Approximate acreage of potentially jurisdiction wetlands and other waters mapped within the evaluation areas.

Project Site Wetlands
(Acres)
Other Waters of the U.S.
(Acres)
Lake El Estero
Washerwoman’s Pond
Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin
Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin
Harris Detention Basin
Wilson Detention Basin
Total
~1.22
~0.31
~0.34
~0.24
~0.22
~0.17
~2.50
~17.21
~0.44
~0.28
>0.01
--
--
~17.93
Impacts
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in impacts to potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters present within the evaluation areas. Impacts to wetlands in the first year will include removal of 50% of the vegetation at all of the basins except Washerwoman’s Pond and Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin; these two basins will be drained and regraded in the first year (year 1), resulting in the removal of all of the existing wetland. In subsequent years, only 50% of the vegetation would be removed every two years at all of the basins. The proposed project would result in temporary impacts to approximately 1.58 acres of wetland habitat. The maximum acres of wetland that would be impacted by the proposed project during year 1 are presented in Table 3. Impacts to wetlands in subsequent years (2-15) would very likely total less than 0.10 acre per year averaged over that time period for all of the project sites combined. This depends on the amount of sediment and subsequent establishment of fringe wetlands over time. Some detention basins collect more sediment than others and it may be that dredging and associated vegetation removal will not be needed more than twice throughout the 15 year permit period at each site, depending on sedimentation rates.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 30 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 276, Packet Page 430

Detention Basin Maintenance Project
Table 3: Approximate acreage of potentially jurisdiction wetlands and other waters within the evaluation areas that would be impacted by the proposed project in year 1.

Area of Wetlands Impacted in Project Site Year 1 (Acres)Other Waters of the U.S. Impacted (Acres)
Lake El Estero ~0.61
Washerwoman’s Pond ~0.31
Lagunita Mirada Sediment Basin ~0.34
Lower Ragsdale Detention Basin ~0.12
Harris Detention Basin ~0.11
Wilson Detention Basin ~0.09
Total ~1.58
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Impacts resulting from the proposed project will include removal of vegetation and sediment that form wetlands within the project sites. This impact will temporarily reduce the existing wetland habitat within the project sites. As sediment continues to enter the project sites in-between dredging events, new wetlands will form and replace those that have been removed via maintenance activities. No permanent changes to wetlands will result from the proposed project. The following mitigation measure has been provided below to reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure WD-1: Subsequent to the initial dredging and vegetation removal scheduled for year 1 as described above, vegetation removal will occur no more than once every two years at each basin and include the removal of no more that 50% of the emergent vegetation to minimize the scope and scale of the temporary loss of wetland function and value.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 31 Wetland Delineation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 277, Packet Page 431

REFERENCES
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material. Federal Register Vol. 45 (249). Pp. 85352-85353.

Matthews MA and Mitchell M. 2015. The Plants of Monterey County; an Illustrated Field Key. Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Monterey Bay Chapter. 446 pp.

Munsell. 2009. Munsell Soil Color Charts. GretagMacbeth. New Windsor, NY. [ACOE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Part 328-329. Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. [ACOE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0. Wakeley JS, Lichvar RW, Noble CV, editors.

ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 121 pp.
[ACOE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2014. Arid West 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List. Lichvar RW, Butterwick M, Melvin NC, Kirchner WN, editors.
[ACOE & EPA] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007 May.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. Available from:http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/jd_guidebook_0512 07final.pdf
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture – Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Soil Survey of Monterey County, California. In cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. [cited 2016, April 1]. Available from:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/CA053/0/monterey.pdf [USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1993. Soil Survey Manual [Internet]. [cited 2015, July 2]. Available from [USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995.

Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Federal Register 60 (37): 10349. [USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. Hydric Soils of the United States [Internet]. [cited 2015, July 2]. Available from:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/ [USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Web soil survey [Internet]. [cited 2015, June 24]. Available from:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. National Wetlands Inventory Wetland Mapper [Internet]. [cited 2016, April 1]. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html [Shaaf & Wheeler] Shaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. 2014. Groundwater Replenishment Project Urban Runoff Capture at Lake El Estero (Internal Revised Draft April 2014).

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 278, Packet Page 432 Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 2002. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual. Glenwood, NM. WTI 02-1. 143 pp.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 279, Packet Page 433

ATTACHMENT A
Wetland Delineation Datasheets
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 280, Packet Page 434 Sampling Point: _ ...____
___ ______ Datum: ____
NWI classification: _________
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typi al for this time of year? Yes _ _ No __ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __, Soil J:4fi,or Hydrology __significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ _ No __ Are Vegetation __, Soil 1f2-,or Hydrology __naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ± No _ _ _ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ___ within a Wetland? Yes No "7'X: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_.::{._ No __ 7~- Remarks 'IN SH::i , (A cLJ.. tlll T1 lJY) Q. r(CL 0 V.pla -5o,IS ()_-I ~ s,b.. c, re El t,J,no U.('ar Uf r / y
VEGETATION - Use scientifi~ names o+ plants. V
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: ~!.&. ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species

1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: d: (A)

2. Total Number of Dominant

3. Species Across All Strata: ? (B)

4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: /fD¼ (AJB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: r0LPr ) I

1. Prevalence Index worksheet:

2. Total% Cover of: Multiplt bt:

3. OBL species x1=

4. F ACW species x2=

5. FAC species x3=
FACU species X 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
= Total Cover
UPL species x 5=

1. cu0! u.s ncta ,r->1
t1g m w Column Totals: (A) (8)

2. l u~c1lS Ff.b ca o pbal ,L<, g_Q_ ~ (', ~ w

3. I ,, i •/1 {. t S I Y, 1-rir Prevalence Index = BIA - 1~,r V i - 30 + 1-.4l\.t) 4 . Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. Dominance Test is >50% - Prevalence Index is :53.01 6. - _ Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

7. 8.
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) ~ =Total Cover Woodt Vine Stratum (Plot size: Vlk )
' 1
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2.

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ~o % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes -t-- No - - Remarks: 0() l \. \ hld:..J Sh~o r-u0 ") 1 I)~-'( f_ ' -
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 281, Packet Page 435 SOIL Sampling Point: ---')____
Profile Description:

Depth
/inches)
0 -3
3-lfJ
to-/~
(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox Features
Color /moist\ ___.'.&..._ ~ --1Qf__ Texture Remarks
---------------- Of!ft¥-[_
s,11-
k'.xt.. Sta, --c
- ---------------
----------------
----------------
---- ------------
------- ---------- 'T e: C=Concentralion, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
_ Histosol (A 1} _ Sandy Redox (SS} _ 1 cm Muck (A9} (LRR C) _ Hislic Epipedon (A2} _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertie (F18) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2} _ Red Parent Material (TF2} _ Stratified Layers (AS} (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3} ./-, Other (Explain in Remarks} _ 1 cm Muck (A9} (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6}
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7} _ Thick Dark Surface (A12} _ Redox Depressions (F8}
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1} _ Vernal Pools (F9)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4}
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type: _____________
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.

Depth (inches}: __________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks :

Lu-t
~ JC J ( '\ J ~ ( 0 I ( 001, ~ ( I I t 1 I )L , I ' J .h_, I ._), J u._ ' ... f .._ ,_ J ..._:r 'V
II

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Prima!Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that a1:mly) Seconda[Y Indicators (2 or more reguired) j Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (B1} (Riverine) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3} (Riverine} - _ Water Marks (B1} (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4} _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAG-Neutral Test (05) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? YesL No _ _ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes 'j__ No __ Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No __ Depth (inches): -- (includes capillarv frinoe\ Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye)(
, --- No ---
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 282, Packet Page 436 -- --
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Arid West Region
Project/Site: JtJ/2 ·LP S, 1 (1'0 atefc~SIY) City/County: mu n/.{ rf ,.,. ,rlmr!!k;-l1sampling Date: 1-,}7 ,-;}-{J J l..f Applicant/Owner: ---''-'-'-:....::....-+------,f-'---'~"--'-'r-''-"---'---+-- ' - ----- - - --- State: - '..L.!... ~ ~ -- Sampling Point: --~ct:..'--- 2 - lnvestigator(s): --'-'-r=.i<.~~LLJ- 1-_..:,..'---~~!....L=~ µ..~- Section, Township, Range: __________________ Landform (hillslo ) Local relief (concave, convex, none): ______ __ Slope(%): ___ Subregion (LRR) .......~--:'-~~~"'"-'-f--~~~~-io-'---=--t ,-,...----,-----...,---- Long: __________ Datum: _____ ' -f O /' I Soil Map Unit Name: 11(1 1 d OVJ '•) -L• :J "tJNWI classification: ________ _ Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __ No _ _ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __, Soil L-,, or Hydrology __significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes __ No ___ Are Vegetation _ _ , Soil ...::f__,or Hydrology ___naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: itJJA ) % Cover SQecies? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

SaQling/Shrub Stratum

1. (Plot size: ½J /~
r )
= Total Cover

2. 3.

4. 5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: l

2. 1. Barn-a -JD c;,, f''Oi L, o, u<:: s:: I fill W

3. 4 .

5. 6.

7. 8.
.5 = Total Cover
Wood'f. Vine Stratum (Plot size: r:JIA- )
r 1.

2. = Total Cover
% Bare Ground C):s_j in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks:

Spttr St u..t "f- L~ ;~~ \
\J(0 ,-)
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominanl
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: MultiQl'f. b'f_:

OBL species X 1 =
F ACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
- Dominance Test is >50%
- Prevalence Index is s3.0'
_ Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
I I j I
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 283, Packet Page 437 SOIL Sampling Point: - .....a---=: ~--
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) __°&,__ ~ _..1Q£._ Texture Remarks D--3 __________ SitrtCLy 511_-t-_______
3-1;; __________ _ __ ,'fln1/,~ s ,""I...:, ,___________ J;-1(} --'"->4-L-..,..L,f.-.J,(£ ~D- _______ _ __ ___ ___ ,Lac " ,, - ,A.'i, ' , . fJ- __________ ~ Pa1-1nf mt!-lro'tv..
1 ----------- -----
----------------- -----
--- ---------- ---
----- --------- --
'T e: C=Concentration, D=De lelion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Localion: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
_ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (SG) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertie (F18) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) ~ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3 _ Thick Dark Surface (A 12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) 1ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4} unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present): ~ _ u , ,,
Type: Rae /s1 vnabLe +o d ,·~ urr~ ;,--
Depth (inche;; )q: '' / Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primai:y Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that a[![!l)ll Secondai:y Indicators (2 or more reguiredl _ Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) _ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) _ other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Yes __
Yes __
No L
No L Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes _ _ No + Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -- No ~ (includes caoillarv frinae\
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
~ Remarks:
nb (fafft?f hvJ 1 tf).?Srt ./11 d Sod 16 m11iS-f/ bvl
US Army Co Arid West - Version 2.0 rps of Engineers
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 284, Packet Page 438 1 ,r
t_
No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? No ___ No
Use scientific names of plants.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Arid West Region
., _ ... . .r tlarn s IYJ rf)ffti.f/1.Y .r1--~ Jl.JJ
ProjecUSite: ~ i)/?, • ~<; ;.) 'V I '(J.<f:'r/ fr r ft~ f City/County: l/.L'Mk}v.,J 1 - Sampling Date: /.,..o' 7 CTU ApplicanUOwner. CJ}yt ,(L rl/OY't!f K f. f ~ J State: "P. Sampling Point: _ _. -3___ ·,1, 1 '::fj 'J 11 t
lnvestigator(s): S.m5S l l/h ! . H U I Ul{UJ tlisection, Township, Range: _________________ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): W)ttVl--mlA(M r,o £.I Y 1 Local relief (concave, convex, none): _______ Slope(%): ___ Subregion (LRR) Wmikn,{ft! eanf/L( LfJ?L>-at: -~--~Long:~~--- Datum: --­ Soil Map Unit Name: llliii {(jy] Lo.a t>JJ4 fi1!j_ .£:r.1 nd,,. p hJC, p/o ,f/q·-:Jf''~wl classification: -------­ Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __ No __ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __, Soil ~ or Hydrology __significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes __ No __ Are Vegetation __, Soil ~ - or Hydrology __naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

4. l -J( tlln'1ul/J• Dll'•/ {(/-! 11n ~ ,-_ __ • 1,,g__ 1-H:-:-y- ~ d'""ro:....:ph.:..:yt:;.::ic::;V~e:....:ge~ta:.:: t;:_io_n;. ln;d.;__ ic-ato= =rs=:=======---___j

5. l o-fvs 7i(). :,,;) _l<. Dominance Test is >50%
6 _ Prevalence Index is :s3.01
•---------------------- -------- 7 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting •--------------- ----- ---------- - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. __________________ ~~- ------ 1 ~ = Total Cover _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ---1,J ....:....,/.....'.f'r.., '---__,) 1 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must • ----------------- - ------------ be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

2. --- --------------------------- f--------------------1 _ _ _ = Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ____ % Cover of Biotic Crust ____ Present? Yes..L_ No __ Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _
Remarks: w jrU rs a
Sa,7 s af l//f.M
fl t I ,r.'o I I (/l I

VEGETATION -
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: __fv_ /ft: '-'---~ l% Cover Species? Status I

1. ------------------------------

2. --------------------------

3. - ---------- ------------- - - 4 . __________________ ------------ ___ = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: _ N_ fk._____) J

1. ------------ ------------------

2. ------------------ ------------

3.---------------------- - ---- ---

4. ------------------------------

5. ------------------- --- - - ------
_ __ = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: t;.._ :! _ ,
1 1

1. , ltv:icu c_ ual-aIUS __JJ)_~~
3 2
.
. <)vnr Ii..S.-+-- 1~<; .llcc,V .ol7q1 (.l(J
jr(t
CtitJO J1q} (s 1 S-1:/d)_ 2:D 1/r _
5 ~ Y(Zu
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: / (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
~
-·
I (rtJ /c
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species X 1 =
FACW species ____ x2=
FAC species x3 =
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: ____ (A) (B)
Prevalence Index =BIA=
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 285, Packet Page 439 --- - - -------
--- ---------
--- ---------
--- ---------
--- ---------
SOIL Sampling Point: __,_3_....___
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) ____!2__ __lyQg_ Loe' Texture Remarks a--~ ----__,1,_lt:J d~(liJI(., ,..-; '1 f 1.· ~ ~ tl_i... ,,✓ M.Jf :~
1 v Jl~l.( ~~~ ~ l~
I l
------ 'ti
,;- ( 6' lQ l[/L ?J/_r l{]2_ ~
c ~
------ I
'Tvoe: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils3 :
_ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (SS) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertie (F18) _
_
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (AS) (LRR C)
_
_
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_X Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11 ) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, - _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes..i,__ No --- Remarks: 'f,,o.~IYl 0~ I r') clctJ ./, C ~ I / / Cf'n IJ) 1 ,>I f I I vpll<.,-:... .,, Ji"JO I \ S
A' ;
'1 .\..
./' ./
F- ( j
Cl & c,.__
L., (_ (V I (.,A,., f l-
~ 1 u dxn l or
_, HYDROLOGY
I ,
... J
Jr \J.A_+ lcu '"1, \) :) (
l
L.,~ ~ '-- i \.(. f'L tWetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primaty Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that a1212ly) Seconda[Y Indicators (2 or more reguired) Y, Surface Water (A 1) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Water Marks (81) (Riverine) !_ High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (812) _ Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverine) _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Drift Deposits (83) (Riverine) _ Water Marks (81) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Sediment Deposits (82) (Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Drift Deposits (83) (Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (05) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes rr- No __ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes ~ No __ Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No __ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ){__ No --- (includes caoillarv frinael Describe R_ecorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), ifavailable:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 286, Packet Page 440 ~
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
ProjecUSite: 2/)J:f- /6, 1fr0 T tirnh/JYJ f.3Js ,n f/~ {t~~unty: fY}@kH, 1 I!Jlmkrcu ~~piing Date: 1-; r:J-?(Jt V T • f7 ~ 7 l / r /'IL /1 ,,/
ApplicanUOwner: ~":ht t ,lJ ,- dYJ-lfI l (., I State: ~U~1'1~- Sampling Point: __'f:,....____ lnvestigator(s): e 11
~Yt~<-~)I/J)D , \ • lie;; ~1 ;/-<Section, Township, Range:--- --------------- Landform (hillslope,~errace, e:c.): nl)t;?l,{lcfr /,,;.,_ (I l ✓ Local relief (concave, convex, none):-------- C
Slope (%): ___
Subregion (LRR): Jh.,f/dct(fllJ,('/4,-J f'll ( Lfl~() Lat: Long: ________ Datum: ____ Soil Map Unit Name: A.{(tf /tJn /a ~ , /l ~ / nr~ \ ~};, ,,-1 ,;J 1:J 'l ' : µt"f NWI classification: _________ • ' - i Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __ No ___ (l_f no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __, Soil .Y.__, or Hydrology __significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes __ No _ _ Are Vegetation __, Soil l_, or Hydrology _ _ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks: //)~ '-0(U
~o.,lc~
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No --:::r-
,6 a 1,,.,l,,;(,ui1l#1 .i
).,, I .Iv{
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
: 1 ' / • ' / ,,_ ":,, l-l--•-'t'ttI JV.._j ,: { I"t
.d ' ti lvL!ICt; SfttfI l!\Ji'r·L (I f {fJ
J
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: --~--4/_Pr___, % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 That Are O8L, FACW, or FAC: (A) . ------ ---------------------