21 to avoid potential habitat disturbance. Additionally, the Standard BMPs, including those required by PDF-3, Water Quality Protection Measures, for dust suppression measures, erosion- and sedimentcontrol measures (sand and gravel bags, plastic-free [no monofilament] fiber rolls, and silt fencing), use of weed-free erosion-control products, and preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), would be required of the construction contractor. The SWPPP would be prepared pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ). The SWPPP would address the potential sources and locations of stormwater contamination characteristics, impacts of specific contaminants, and temporary and permanent erosion-control practices and would include water sampling data, construction practices that minimize stormwater contamination, coordination of BMPs with planned construction activities, and compliance with County, state, and federal regulations. Additional BMPs that would be required during construction include noise suppression measures and trash containment methods. With the implementation of PDF-1 through PDF-3 and standard construction BMPs, temporary indirect impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species observed and with high potential to occur in the survey area would be less than significant.
Nesting Birds
No raptor or bird nests were observed in the survey area during the habitat assessment; however, a focused nesting bird survey was not conducted, and the survey was conducted at the end of the breeding season when active bird nests are not likely to be observed. The multitude of buildings and trees and shrubs, both native and non-native, provide plentiful nesting habitat for passerines and raptors protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), Section 3504. Therefore, there is high potential for birds and raptors to nest in the survey area.
As previously discussed, no trees are proposed for removal, and no tree trimming is expected to occur during project construction; therefore, implementation of the project would not remove potential nesting habitat for protected raptors and birds. However, if construction is conducted during the general bird breeding season (January 15 through August 31), PDF-4, Nesting Bird Survey, would require a pre-construction nesting bird survey to avoid direct and indirect impacts on bird species protected under the MBTA and CDFW. Therefore, potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.
Roosting Bats
The project does not propose the removal of potential roosting habitat in the nearby buildings, rock crevices, and coniferous trees or of suitable foraging habitat in the ornamental plantings in and surrounding the survey area that would occur during project construction. Further, no nighttime work is proposed that would disturb bats potentially roosting in or around the survey area. Therefore, the potential impact on roosting bats would be less than significant.
In summary, the potential impact to candidate, sensitive, or special status plant or wildlife species would be less than significant.
Items B: The survey area contains one sensitive vegetation community, approximately 3.2 acres of disturbed dune scrub located in the Asilomar Dunes and Arena Avenue segments (Figure 3) (CDFW 2022c). Approximately 0.2 acre of disturbed dune scrub occurs in the APE for the project site along Asilomar Avenue, and 0.2 acre of disturbed dune scrub occurs in the APE for the project site along Arena Avenue. There is no riparian habitat in the survey area.
Previous residential development has completely altered the natural topography of the dunes and altered the plant composition as well. The disturbed dune scrub occurring in the Asilomar Avenue segment is dominated by non-native Chilean sea fig, with coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and smooth PGCC 9-6-2023
22 cat’s ear (Hypochaeris glabra) throughout and shows evidence of modification from the planting of nonnative ornamental species from the surrounding residential development. In comparison, the disturbed dune scrub in Arena Avenue segment is dominated by native species, including beach sagewort and dune sedge grass (Carex pansa), with scattered goldenbush, seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium), liveforever (Dudleya sp.), pink sand verbena (Abronia umbellata), California aster (Symphyotrichum chilense), dune grass (Elymus sp.), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Although the dune scrub in the Arena Avenue segment supports more native species, this area is characterized as disturbed because of large open weedy patches, apparent historical modification from the surrounding development, and current disturbance from adjacent landowners and members of the public pedestrians as evidenced by bicycle tires tracks and footprints.
Direct Impacts
Construction would be limited to the paved and dirt roadways that directly border the disturbed dune scrub in the Asilomar Avenue and Arena Avenue segments, avoiding direct impacts on the disturbed dune scrub vegetation (Figure 4). Further, no trees or shrubs would be trimmed or removed during implementation of the project, and as required by PDF-2, sensitive dune habitat would be flagged and/or fenced for avoidance prior to construction. The disturbed (ruderal) habitat and developed land in the survey area are not considered sensitive vegetation communities and impacts on these land cover types would be less than significant.
Indirect Impacts
Most of the indirect impacts on sensitive plant species described in Item 4(a) also result in potentially significant indirect impacts on sensitive vegetation communities. Indirect impacts on the sensitive vegetation community, disturbed dune scrub, in the survey area could result from invasion by exotic species, exposure to construction-related pollutant discharges, and trampling by humans. As previously discussed in Threshold 4(a), implementation of PDF-2, Sensitive Habitats Flagging and Fencing, would require the installation of avoidance flagging and fencing around the sensitive dune habitat prior to construction to avoid potential disturbance. Standard construction BMPs, including those required by PDF-3, Water Quality Protection Measures, for dust suppression measures, erosionand sediment-control measures (sand and gravel bags, plastic-free [no monofilament] fiber rolls, and silt fencing), use of weed-free erosion-control products, and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, would be required of the construction contractor during project implementation. With implementation of PDF-2, PDF-3, and standard construction BMPs, indirect impacts on the sensitive vegetation community in the survey area would be less than significant.
Items C: There are no wetlands on the three project sites. Two potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources were observed in the southern portion of the survey area along Arena Avenue adjacent to a private residence in the Arena Avenue Segment (Figure 6, Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources). Although a formal aquatic resources delineation was not conducted in the survey area during the 2022 habitat assessment, these two features were preliminarily determined to be erosional drainages, likely constructed or formed from periodic surface stormwater flows directed away from the residence that occurs south of the survey area in this location. These two erosional drainages are surrounded by upland, disturbed habitat, and developed land (Figure 3). The two erosional drainages are outside of the project impact area and disturbance of these potential aquatic resources is not expected to occur during construction.
Direct Impacts
Construction activities in the Arena Avenue segment adjacent to the aquatic resources would be limited to the paved roadway and would not disturb the banks or bottom of the drainages. Therefore, the impact on the potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources in the survey area would be less than significant.
PGCC 9-6-2023
23 Indirect Impacts
Most of the indirect impacts on sensitive plant species and sensitive vegetation communities described in Items 4(a) and 4(b) could also result in potentially significant indirect impacts on potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources. Indirect impacts could result from generation of fugitive dust, changes in hydrology resulting from construction (including sedimentation and erosion), and exposure to construction-related pollutant discharges. As previously discussed in Items 4(a) and 4(b), standard construction BMPs, including those required by PDF-3, Water Quality Protection Measures, for dust suppression measures, erosion- and sediment-control measures (sand and gravel bags, plastic-free [no monofilament] fiber rolls, and silt fencing), use of weed-free erosion-control products, and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, would be required of the construction contractor during project implementation. With implementation of PDF-3 and standard construction BMPs, indirect impacts on the potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources in the survey area would be less than significant.
Items D: The survey area is in a relatively densely populated portion of Pacific Grove that is bordered by the Pacific Ocean. While mule deer, a large ungulate/mammal, are abundant in the survey area, the survey area is unlikely to be used as a major wildlife movement corridor for other large mammals due to the disturbance by humans and lack of connectivity to larger open space. The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project has not identified any wildlife movement corridors occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site (CDFW 2022d). The nearest designated wildlife movement corridor is 4.6 miles to the southeast. Mesocarnivores, including foxes and coyotes, have some potential to be found in the survey area but are not likely to use the area as major routes of movement or for nursey sites. The survey area falls within the Pacific Flyway and, therefore, is used by birds during migration.
The project would not permanently impact the majority of the survey area, including the existing trees and disturbed dune scrub, and would not impede wildlife movement through the survey area. General wildlife movement routes that may occur through the survey area would remain after implementation of the project. The project would not impact the potential aquatic resources or any other downstream aquatic areas that would interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish species.
Implementation of the project would not substantially interfere with the movement or established migratory corridors of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, including the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, impacts on wildlife movement corridors would be less than significant.
Items E: The Asilomar Dunes and Arena Avenue segments occur within the Asilomar Dunes Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area and Coastal Zone Planning Area VI of the Pacific Grove LCP Land Use Plan, which provides policies and guidelines for land use and development in the Pacific Grove Coastal Zone (City of Pacific Grove 2020). The Pacific Grove LCP requires coastal development permits for any development within the Pacific Grove Coastal Zone and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA), including project activities that require grading, design review, and conditional use permits, prior to project approval. Further, the project would be subject to the goals and policies outlined in the Natural Resources Element of the City of Pacific Grove General Plan (City of Pacific Grove 1994).
As previously discussed in Items 4(a) through 4(d), the project would not result in significant impacts on sensitive biological resources, including sensitive plant and wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities, potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources, or wildlife movement corridors. Through implementation of PDF-1 through PDF-4, avoidance of impacts on biological resources, and compliance with the permit requirements of the Pacific Grove LCP, the project would comply with the local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources identified in the Natural Resources Element of the City of Pacific Grove General Plan and the Pacific Grove LCP (City of Pacific Grove 1994, 2020). The project would not result in tree removal, limbing, or otherwise adversely affect PGCC 9-6-2023
24 existing trees. Therefore, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including tree preservation, and the impact would be less than significant.
Items F: The survey area is not within an area protected by or subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Sources:
Calflora. 2022. “Information on Wild California Plants.” Accessed November 2022. http://www.calflora.org/.
CCH (Consortium of California Herbarium). 2022. “Consortium of California Herbarium.” Updated November 8. Accessed November 2022. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2022a. Database Query. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Commercial version dated March 1. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch.
CDFW. 2022b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Accessed November 2022. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/.
CDFW. 2022c. California Natural Community List. July 5. Accessed November 2022. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?Documen/tID=153398&inline. CDFW. 2022d. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. Accessed November 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Connectivity/CEHC. City of Pacific Grove. 1994. Pacific Grove General Plan. Accessed November 2022. https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/our_city/departments/community_development/programs _projects/general_plan.php#outer-269.
City of Pacific Grove. 2020. Local Coastal Program, including Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances. Accessed November 2022.
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/our_city/departments/community_development/programs _projects/local_coastal_program.php#outer-270.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Online edi-tion, v9-01 1.5. Accessed November 2022. http:www.rareplants.cnps.org/. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Accessed November 2022. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. USFWS. 2022b. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. Accessed November 2022. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html.
USACE. 2022. Traditional Navigable Waters in San Francisco District. Accessed November 2022. https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdiction/.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2022. National Hydrologic Dataset. Accessed November 2022. https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https://hydro.nationalmap.gov/arcg is/rest/services/nhd/MapServer&source=sd.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
PGCC 9-6-2023
25 B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
The following discussion is based on the results of the database review of information provided by the Northwest Information Center for the project area of potential effect (APE), field survey, and cultural resources assessment conducted by Harris & Associates (Harris) qualified archaeologist on October 6, 2022.
Item A: The archival research did not indicate the presence of historical resources, and no historical resources were identified during the cultural reconnaissance survey. Based on the records search and the cultural survey, it has been determined that the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because they do not occur within the project APE.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Items B - C: The archival research did indicate the presence of one prehistoric archaeological resource (P-27-000493/CA-MNT-000399) within the project APE. The site was originally recorded in 1973, and the record identified that the site included workshop flakes and culturally modified shell. The condition of the site was identified as poor. Site P-27-000493/CA-MNT-000399 was not located during the pedestrian survey and may have been destroyed as a result of residential development. Due to the sensitivity of the area, there is potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, including archaeological/historical resources and human remains. Per Land Use Plan Policy CRS-2, monitoring would be required during ground-disturbing activities, and the City will apply a standard condition of approval to require archaeological monitoring during all ground disturbing activities. Therefore, potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.
Source:
Cultural Resources Survey Letter Report – Negative Findings, City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement Project for Wastewater Collection Phase 9, prepared by Donna Beddow, M.A., RPA of Harris & Associates, October 2022 (Confidential)
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
PGCC 9-6-2023
26 IMPACT Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
IMPACT Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Item A: The project would be responsible for an incremental increase in the consumption of energy resources during construction due to operation of construction equipment and vehicle trips from trucks and worker’s vehicles. As described in Section 9, all project construction equipment would be required to comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions requirements for construction equipment, which includes measures to reduce fuel-consumption, such as imposing limits on idling and requiring older engines and equipment to be retired, replaced, or repowered. As a result, potential impacts associated with the small temporary increase in consumption of fuel during construction are expected to be less than significant.
The project involves replacing existing segments of sewer lines. No impacts are expected from project operation. Therefore, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The construction and operation impact regarding wasteful and inefficient energy use would be less than significant.
Item B: The County of Monterey adopted a Municipal Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2013 and is currently preparing a 2030 Community Climate Action Plan. The 2013 CAP included GHG reduction strategies to increase energy efficiency at County facilities (County of Monterey 2013). The 2030 CAP update is anticipated to include a net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions goal for County facilities (County of Monterey 2022). As previously described, operation of the proposed sewer system improvements would be substantially similar to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with local energy efficiency plans, and the potential impact would be less than significant.
Sources:
County of Monterey. 2013. Monterey County Municipal Climate Action Plan. June. County of Monterey. 2022. “Sustainability at Monterey County”. Accessed August 20, 2022.
Available at https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/administrativeoffice/intergovernmental-and-legislative-affairs/sustainability
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
A) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on PGCC 9-6-2023
27 other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
(iv) Landslides?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
D) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
E) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? PGCC 9-6-2023
28 IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
F) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Items A – F: According to the State of California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, Pacific Grove is not within an earthquake fault zone. Pacific Grove, including each of the three (3) project sites, is situated on relatively stable granite bedrock, which reduces the likelihood of damage resulting from a seismic event. The project would be constructed in accordance with applicable seismic design parameters in the California Building Code.
Approximately 4,380 square feet of surface area across three sites would be disturbed to implement the repair and replacement of wastewater collection system infrastructure. All soils removed during trench work and pipe burst would be replaced, limiting the potential for substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The project sites are spread across two soil types, Baywood sand (BbC, 2 to 15 percent slopes) and Dune land (Df). Neither soil type is considered expansive, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code. The project would not involve the construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Lastly, there is no record of the properties containing a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature that would be directly or indirectly impacted as a result of the project. Moreover, the project would occur in areas previously disturbed for installation of wastewater collection and street infrastructure. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to geology and soils.
Sources:
California Department of Conservation. Earthquake Fault Zones: A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault and Rupture Hazards in California (Special Publication 42). https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/SpecialPublications/SP_042.pdf County of Monterey GIS Geologic Hazards Map:
https://montereyco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=80aadc38518a458 89751e97546ca5c53
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Monterey County, California.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/CA053/0/montere y.pdf
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
A) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
PGCC 9-6-2023
29 IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Item A: In accordance with Section 15183.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) may be used to analyze whether a project would result in significant GHG emissions provided that the plan includes specific elements. Plans that meet the listed requirements are referred to as Qualified GHG Reduction Plans. Plans are required to include an emissions inventory, establish baselines below which GHG emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, estimate future GHG emissions in the covered geographic area, specify measures to meet emissions reduction targets, establish a mechanism to monitor plan progress, and be adopted following environmental review.
The County’s 2013 CAP is not a qualified plan, and the 2030 community update has not been adopted. However, the project’s contribution of GHG emissions would be limited to an incremental increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by usage of fossil fuels during the project’s short (approximately 6 week) construction period. Additionally, as outlined in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) recently adopted GHG thresholds, construction emissions typically represent a very small portion of a project’s lifetime GHG emissions. Therefore, the significance of GHG emissions and emissions reduction planning focuses on on-going annual GHG contributions (BAAQMD 2022). The project would not result in a net increase in VMT, and energy demand of the replaced sewer line segments would be similar to existing conditions. The replaced sewer line segments would replace older infrastructure and would likely result in emissions savings by extending the life of the lines compared to existing conditions. As such, the project would not result in an ongoing contribution to GHG emissions, and the impact would be less than significant.
Item B: The County of Monterey adopted a Municipal CAP in 2013 and is currently preparing a 2030 Community Climate Action Plan. As previously described, operation of the proposed system improvements would be substantially similar to existing conditions. The proposed project would not result in a net increase in ongoing GHG emissions and would not include any components that would conflict with CAP implementation. The potential impacts would be less than significant.
Source:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
A) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
PGCC 9-6-2023
30 IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
D) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
E) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
F) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
G) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
PGCC 9-6-2023
31 DISCUSSION
Items A - B: Project implementation would require the use of construction equipment typical of small infrastructure construction projects, the operation of which could result in a spill or accidental release of hazardous materials, including fuel, engine oil, and lubricant. However, the use and transport of any hazardous materials would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations, which would minimize risk associated with the transport of hazardous materials. Operationally, the project would not involve the use or storage of hazardous materials. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Items C - E: The project sites are not located on or within 1,000 feet of a known hazardous materials site or within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest airport (Monterey Regional Airport) is over 4.92 miles to the southeast of the project sites. See Section VI.13, Noise, for analysis regarding potential noise impacts. Therefore, the project would result in no impact to schools, hazardous materials sites, or airports.
Item F: Given that the project would involve improvements to the City’s wastewater collection system, the project would not impair or interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. During construction, street closures would be of limited duration and alternative routes would be available. Emergency access would also be retained during construction activities. Therefore, the potential impacts of the project would be less than significant regarding interfering with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Item G:
The project sites are not located within or adjacent to a wildland fire hazard area per the latest adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, and the project does not involve construction of aboveground structures that could be subject to wildfires. Therefore, the project would have no impact regarding exposing people or structures to wildland fire hazards.
Sources:
California Government Code Section 65962.5.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ion Num=65962.5
Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted February 25, 2019. https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument?id=75251 CAL FIRE – Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in LRA map. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5871/pacific_grove.pdf
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
A) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
PGCC 9-6-2023
32 IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
iv) impede or redirect flows?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
D) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
E) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
PGCC 9-6-2023
33 DISCUSSION
Items A – C & E: The project involves improvements to approximately 1,008 linear feet of the City’s wastewater collection system at three (3) sites. Construction-related activities will be minor and temporary in nature, occurring within road and railroad rights-of-way and a utility easement on a previously developed lot in an established residential neighborhood. This minor scope of development would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. During construction, excavated materials will be protected with erosion control measures to avoid or minimize runoff. Drainage characteristics of the project sites will not be permanently altered in a manner that would increase erosion or runoff.
As proposed, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, alter the drainage pattern of the site or area, nor provide additional sources of polluted runoff or degrade water quality. Additionally, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Therefore, the project would result in no impacts.
Item D: The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving flooding.
According to Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels 06053C0164H and 06053C0168H, the project sites is not located within a flood plain or within a 100-year flood hazard area, or in an area prone to flooding. There are no levees or dams within two miles of the sites. Tsunami and seiche vulnerability at the sites is limited. The project sites are not located near a freshwater lake or pond, so the potential for inundation from a seiche or mudflow is also low. Since flooding hazards are limited, the project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation, nor impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, the project would result in no impact regarding flood hazards.
Sources:
2019 California Building Code - California Code of Regulations. Prepared by California Building Standards Commission.
National Flood Hazard Layer, FIRM Panels 06053C0164H and 06053C0168H California Department of Conservation. Monterey County Tsunami Hazard Areas, Monterey County Tsunami Hazard Areas (ca.gov)
FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home City of Pacific Grove Land Use Plan, Figure 3, Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
A. Physically divide an established community?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
PGCC 9-6-2023
34 DISCUSSION
Item A: The project would involve improvements to approximately 1,008 linear feet of the City’s wastewater collection system at three (3) sites within the Coastal Zone. The project would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur.
Item B: The project would be subject to the City of Pacific Grove’s 1994 General Plan and 2020 Local Coastal Program. Segment A (Railroad Way) would be located within a former railroad rightof-way zoned Open Space (O) with a General Plan (GP) land use designation of Open Space (OS).
Segment B (Arena Avenue) would be located along Arena Avenue, which does not have a zoning or GP land use designation. Segment C (Asilomar Dunes) would be located within a utility easement on a developed residential parcel. A portion of the site is zoned R-1-B-4 (Single Family Residential with Coastal Zone Overlay) with a GP land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR 1-2), 1.0 DU/ac. The remainder of the site (i.e., the portion within the Sunset Drive right-of-way) does not have a zoning or GP land use designation. Each project site is located within the Coastal Zone, and all are subject to the City’s certified Local Coastal Program which includes the adopted Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan (PGMC 23.90).
The project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation and would not result in impacts. See Sections 4 (Biological Resources), 5 (Cultural Resources), and 18 (Tribal Cultural Resources) for additional information and analysis. There would be no impact.
Sources:
City of Pacific Grove 2020 Local Coastal Program.
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/living/community-development/planning/localcoastal-program
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
A. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B. Result in the loss or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Items A & B: According to the City’s 1994 General Plan Natural Resources Element (Chapter 6), the Pacific Grove area is classified as “MRZ-3”, the designation given to areas containing mineral deposits for which the significance cannot be evaluated from available data (Pacific Grove General Plan section 6.3.2). General Plan section 6.3.2 further states that the City is nearly built out, precluding any mineral extraction. Moreover, no mineral resources have been identified within the PGCC 9-6-2023
35 project site and no active mineral resource extraction operations would be affected by the project.
Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral resources.
Sources:
City of Pacific Grove General Plan. 1994.
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/living/community-development/planning/general-plan
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
A) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B) Generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Items A, B: Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary noise in the vicinity of the construction area. However, construction would only occur for approximately six weeks, and would occur in three separate locations, resulting in a reduced extent of exposure at individual receptors. Additionally, as described in Section 9, construction activities would be subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance, (Chapter 11.96 of the Municipal Code), which limits construction activity to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. Therefore, construction would be limited to daytime hours when residences are less noise sensitive. Construction would not require pile driving or other high impact activity that would result in high levels of vibration. Operationally, the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise given that the project involves the replacement of existing wastewater collection infrastructure with similar, improved pipeline below the ground surface. Therefore, the impact related to increased noise and vibration would be less than significant.
PGCC 9-6-2023
36 Item C: The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project site is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Monterey Regional Airport, as is all the City of Pacific Grove, but not in an area or a use type that requires special study or restrictions. The project would replace existing pipeline with similar infrastructure and would not expose people working or residing in the project vicinity to excessive noise levels related to air traffic. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Sources:
City of Pacific Grove, Chapter 11.96, Unlawful Noises. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/PacificGrove/#!/PacificGrove11/PacificGrove1196 .html#11.96
Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument?id=75251
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
A) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Items A & B: The proposed project is intended to ensure safe and reliable public wastewater collection service to residents of Pacific Grove. The project would not increase the capacity of the wastewater collection system nor remove a current obstacle to growth that could indirectly generate population growth. The project would not displace existing housing nor displace people or housing.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Sources:
Project file
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
PGCC 9-6-2023
37 A) Fire protection?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B) Police protection?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C) Schools?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
D) Parks?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
E) Other public facilities?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Items A-E: The project would involve repairs to portions of the City’s wastewater collection system and would not result in an expansion of the system. The project sites are located in an established residential neighborhood served by the Monterey Fire Department, City of Pacific Grove Police Department, and Pacific Grove School District. The project would not create substantial new demand for public services (e.g., fire, police, schools, parks, libraries, hospitals, community centers) that would result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services. The project would have no measurable effect on existing public services in that the project would not result in an increase in demand and would not require expansion of services to serve the project. Temporary closures of Arena Avenue and Sunset Drive during construction would be of short duration and would not delay emergency response as other routes would remain open. As described in Section 9, a construction traffic management plan would be prepared for work in roadways, and emergency access would be retained during construction activities in roadways.
Therefore, the project would have no impact to fire and police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.
Sources:
PGCC 9-6-2023
38 Project file
16. RECREATION
A) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Items A & B: The project would not result in a net increase in population or a commensurate increase in the use of existing parks. Pacific Grove has 28 public parks including the coastline across Sunset Drive from Segments B (Arena Drive) and C (Asilomar Dunes) of the project site, and the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, which encompasses the entirety of Segment A (Railroad Way). Improvements to the City’s existing wastewater collection system would not increase the use of any existing parks or open space/recreational areas, as there would be no population increase resulting from the project. There would be no impact to recreational facilities.
Sources:
Project file
City of Pacific Grove General Plan. 1994.
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/living/community-development/planning/general-plan
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
A) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? IMPACT Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
PGCC 9-6-2023
39 X
C) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
D) Result in inadequate emergency access?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Items A - B: The project would not involve transportation improvements and would not create potential for new users of local and regional transportation systems. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system— including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities—nor would it conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), related to determining the significance of transportation impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) applies to land use projects and describes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts, stating, “Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.” The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018) has set a screening threshold of 110 trips per day to quickly identify when a project would have a less than significant impact due to VMT. The project would not result in an increase in population, and therefore would not result in an increase in VMT associated with the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Items C - D: The project includes repair and replacement of wastewater collection facilities that are primarily underground, including replacement of manhole covers in the roadway which would remain flush with roadway grade and not present a hazard for roadway users. The proposed project would not design features that could increase hazards (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). As described in Section 9, a Temporary Traffic Handling Plan (TTHP) would be prepared for work in roadways, and emergency access would be retained during construction activities in roadways. Construction may occur during peak summer months; therefore, pursuant to PGMC section 23.90.210(b)(2), the City would implement the TTHP so the project would not result in reduction of roadway capacity or public access. Also, per LUP Policy PRA-8, the project would not have the potential to adversely impact public access due the availability of alternative routes and the short duration of street closures. The impact related to transportation hazards and emergency access would be less than significant.
Sources:
Project file
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope PGCC 9-6-2023
40 of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
The following discussion is based on the results of the database review of information provided by the Northwest Information Center for the project area of potential effect (APE), field survey, and cultural resources assessment conducted by Harris & Associates (Harris) qualified archaeologist on October 6, 2022.
Item Ai: The archival research did not indicate the presence of historical resources, and no historical resources were identified during the cultural reconnaissance survey. Based on the records search and the cultural survey, it has been determined that the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because they do not occur within the project APE.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Item Aii: The archival research indicated the presence of one prehistoric archaeological resource (P27-000493/CA-MNT-000399) within the project area of potential effect. The site was originally recorded in 1973 and the record identified that the site included workshop flakes and culturally modified shell. The condition of the site was identified as poor, and Site P-27-000493/CA-MNT000399 was not located during the pedestrian survey and may have been destroyed as a result of residential development.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 and Land Use Plan Policy CRS-1, City of Pacific Grove Public Works staff initiated consultation via notification letters with local Native American tribes on November 17, 2022. The first consultation meeting with the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County was actually held on November 8, 2022, and with the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation (OCEN) on November 15, 2022. Tribal representatives requested access to archaeological reports/surveys, inclusion in mitigation and recovery programs, tribal monitoring, reburial of ancestral remains if found, and return of all cultural items.
Due to the sensitivity of the area, there is potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, including archaeological/historical resources and human remains. Per Land Use Plan Policy CRS-2, monitoring would be required during ground-disturbing activities, and the City will apply a standard PGCC 9-6-2023
41 condition of approval to require tribal monitoring during all ground disturbing activities. Therefore, potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.
Source:
Cultural Resources Survey Letter Report – Negative Findings, City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement Project for Wastewater Collection Phase 9, prepared by Donna Beddow, M.A., RPA of Harris & Associates, October 2022 (Confidential)
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
A. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
D. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
E. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
PGCC 9-6-2023
42 Items A - C: The project would repair and replace existing wastewater collection pipelines and associated facilities. The proposed improvements would generally be made in place, with the construction of some new elements (including manholes and PVC pipelines) within each project site. There is no need for relocation of system facilities; and per LUP Policy INF-10, relocation of the subject infrastructure would not be feasible as the lines serve an existing residential neighborhood.
The project would not generate a demand for more water supply, wastewater treatment, or increase in the use of other utilities and service systems. The replacement pipelines would accommodate existing service needs and would not substantially increase the collection system capacity or adversely affect wastewater treatment capacity. Thus, the project would not result in the need to expand, relocate, or construct new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Items D – E: Operationally, the project would not generate solid waste. During construction, some solid waste would be generated, including hundreds of linear feet of vitrified clay pipe (VCP). Most of the old pipelines would be abandoned in place, limiting the amount of solid waste generated by the project. Solid waste generated through project construction would be disposed of at the Monterey Regional Waste Management District facility north of Marina. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. The project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals because improvements to the wastewater collection system are limited in scope and would not generate excess solid waste. The project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Sources:
Project file
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
A. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? PGCC 9-6-2023
43 IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
D. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Items A - D: The project sites are located within the Local Responsibility Area for Pacific Grove and are not located in a State Responsibility Area. The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is approximately one mile southeast of each project site. The project would involve at or below grade repairs to portions of the City’s wastewater collection system and would not result in development of above-grade structures that would be susceptible to wildfire. The proposed project would not pose a risk of fire beyond the normal risks associated with the maintenance of wastewater infrastructure in established residential neighborhoods. The project sites are served by the Monterey Fire Department under a joint service agreement. Therefore, there would be no impact related to wildfire.
Sources:
Project file
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRAs – Pacific Grove (Map of CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas – Pacific Grove) PGCC 9-6-2023
44 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
Item A: As discussed in this Initial Study, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to all environmental issues. Regarding biological resources, potential impacts to dune habitat could occur as a result of this proposed project yet would be avoided or minimized by implementing standard Best Management Practices and the Project Design Features as described in Section 9, Description of Project, and Section VI.4, Biological Resources. Regarding cultural resources, potential impacts to any unknown or undiscovered resources within the project area would be less than significant by implementing the City’s standard conditions of approval for archaeological and tribal monitoring as described in Section VI.5, Cultural Resources and in Section VI.18, Tribal Cultural Resources. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Item B: As discussed in this Initial Study, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to all environmental issues. Further, most potential impacts would be temporary and construction related. Due to its limited scope, the project would not result in substantial long-term environmental impacts and, therefore, would not result in a substantial contribution to cumulative environmental changes that may occur due to planned and pending development. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Item C: Effects on human beings are generally associated with impacts related to issue areas such as aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, geology and soils, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. As discussed in this Initial Study, the project would have no impact in the resource areas related to geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, public services, recreation, and wildfire. As discussed in this Initial Study, the project would have less than significant impacts in the resource areas related to PGCC 9-6-2023
45 aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Therefore, as proposed and analyzed in this Initial Study, the issue areas listed above would not require mitigation and the project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and potential impacts would be less than significant.
PGCC 9-6-2023
46 This page intentionally left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
FIGURES
PGCC 9-6-2023
This page intentionalfy left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Date: 9/21/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Pacific Grove\Map Docs\Figure1_RegionalLocation.mxd P a c i f i c O c e a n
Project APE
Project Sites
Vicinity Map
Source: ESRI 2022.
Figure 1 ± 0 0.5 1
Miles Pacific Grove Wastewater Collection System
Improvement Project - Phase 9 - Coastal Zones Segments
Project Sites
PGCC 9-6-2023
This page intentionalfy left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Short St
Melton Pl
Pico Pl
Shell Ave
Railroad Way
Cll de Los Amigos
Evergreen Rd
Melrose St
Arena Ave
del Monte Blvd Ridge Rd
17 Mile Dr
Seventeen Mile Dr Monarch Ln
Pico Ave
Jewell Ave
Lighthouse Ave
Crocker Ave
Asilomar Blvd
Sunset Dr
Project APE
Date: 9/21/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Pacific Grove\Map Docs\Cultural\ProjectAPE.mxd Source: Maxar Imagery 2021.
±
0 250 500
Feet Project APE
Source: Maxar Imagery 2021.
Figure 2
Pacific Grove Wastewater Collection System
Improvement Project - Phase 9 - Coastal Zones Segments
Railroad Way
Segment
Asilomar Dunes
Segment
Arena Avenue
Segment
PGCC 9-6-2023
This page intentionalfy left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Appendix A – Plan Set
PGCC 9-6-2023
This page intentionalfy left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
This page intentionalfy left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Appendix B – Biological Resources Letter Report
PGCC 9-6-2023
This page intentionalfy left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
600 B Street, Suite 2000, San Diego, CA 92101 p: 619.236.1778 f: 619.236.1179 WeAreHarris.com December 7, 2022
Mr. Daniel Gho
Director of Public Works/Deputy City Manager
City of Pacific Grove
2100 Sunset Drive
Pacific Grove, California 93950
Project: City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement Project for Wastewater Collection System Phase 9 Dear Mr. Gho:
On October 6, 2022, Harris & Associates (Harris) conducted a biological resources field reconnaissance survey of the proposed City of Pacific Grove (City) Capital Improvement Project for Wastewater Collection System Phase 9 (project) site and a 100-foot survey buffer (approximately 13.5 acres in total), herein referred to as the “survey area” (Attachment 1, Figures; Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Survey Area). The purpose of this survey was to identify the presence of existing vegetation communities and to evaluate the potential for occurrence of sensitive plant and wildlife species to assist in early planning and to identify potential biological constraints for developing the project. In addition to the survey results, a review of biological databases is provided in this analysis to aid in the impact evaluation of the project on its current immediate and surrounding environment.
Project Description and Location
Project Description
The purpose of the project is to ensure safe and reliable public wastewater collection service to City residents.
The project includes the repair and replacement of the three segments of the wastewater collection system in the western portion of the City. The three segments include Railroad Way, Asilomar Avenue, and Arena Avenue (Figure 2). A summary of activities to conduct the repairs at the three segments is provided below:
• The Railroad Way segment includes approximately 537 linear feet of pipeline replacement via trenching (not pipe bursting) within the former railroad right-of-way. Planned improvements in this segment include the following:
• Replacement of 245 linear feet of 6-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) with 8-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipeline • Reconstruction of a manhole approximately 92 feet from manhole 890 • Reconstruction of manhole 888
• Installation of 292 linear feet of 8-inch PVC pipeline • Plugging and in-place abandonment of 292 linear feet of 6-inch VCP pipeline • Construction of a new manhole approximately 100 feet from manhole 888 • The Asilomar Avenue segment includes improvements in dune habitat between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue and within the Sunset Drive right-of-way. Planned work in the Sunset Drive roadway includesthe following:
• Replacement of pipeline that is at a 45-degree angle with a new straight section of 35 linear feet of 6-inch PVC pipeline
• Construction of a new manhole
• Removal of manhole 853
• Plugging and abandonment of the angled section of 6-inch VCP pipeline • Planned work in the utility easement that extends through dune habitat and private property between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue includes the following:
• Spot repair 69 feet from manhole 853A
• Construction of a new manhole (#854) approximately 167 feet from manhole 853A PGCC 9-6-2023
2 • Reconstruction of manhole 855
• Replacement of 95 linear feet of 6-inch VCP with 6-inch PVC via trenching (cannot pipe burst due to the significant sag in the pipeline)
• The Arena Avenue segment includes excavation of receiving pits and replacement of approximately 332 linear feet of 6-inch VCP with 8-inch high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipeline (via pipe bursting) within the Arena Avenue right-of-way just east of and including Sunset Drive.
Project activities would be limited to the developed roadways and established access roadsin the three segments. No permanent impacts on biological resources would occur during project implementation. Potential temporary, indirect impacts on biological resources could occur and are discussed in the Project Impacts section of thisletter report.
Project Design Features
The following project design features (PDFs) have been incorporated into the project design to avoid potential impacts on biological resources on the project site. The PDFs would be incorporated into the construction plans.
PDF-1: Focused Rare Plant Clearance Survey and Avoidance. Before ground-disturbing activities, including digging, clearing, grubbing, and grading, a qualified person shall conduct a pre-construction sensitive plant survey within 100 feet of the project disturbance areas. If sensitive plant species are identified by the qualified person, they shall flag the extent of each species patch or individual in the survey area for avoidance during the pre-construction survey. If sensitive plant species are observed in the impact area during the pre-construction sensitive plant survey or cannot be avoided during implementation, individuals shall be counted, and permanent impacts shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio in suitable habitat outside the impact areas as applicable.
PDF-2: Sensitive Habitats Flagging and Fencing. Before ground-disturbing activities, including digging, clearing, grubbing, and grading, a qualified person shall flag and/or install avoidance fencing around the outer limits of the disturbed dune scrub habitat and sensitive Monterey cypress and Monterey pine trees. The flagging and installed avoidance fencing shall remain in place through the end of construction.
PDF-3: Water Quality Protection Measures.
1. Standard construction best management practices for erosion and sediment control, such as the use of silt fencing, shall be implemented to prevent wind and water erosion and to minimize subsequent sedimentation to nearby sensitive habitats and potential aquatic features.
2. The project shall implement the following practices to provide effective temporary and final erosion control during construction as needed:
a. Preserve existing vegetation where required and when feasible. b. Control the area of soil-disturbing operations so the construction contractor can implement erosioncontrol best management practices quickly and effectively. c. Stabilize non-active areas within 14 days of cessation of construction activities or sooner if stipulated by local requirements.
d. Control erosion in concentrated flow paths by applying temporary erosion-control blankets, check dams, erosion-control seeding, or alternate methods.
e. Prior to the completion of construction, apply permanent erosion control to any remaining disturbed soil areas.
f. Maintain sufficient erosion-control materials on site.
3. The following temporary sediment-control best management practices shall be implemented in conformance with the following guidelines and in accordance with the standard best management practice guidance:
a. Silt Fence: As practical and necessary, silt fencing may be placed at the perimeter of disturbed site areas to mitigate discharge of sediment from site stormwater flows. b. Weed-Free, Plastic-Free (No Monofilament) Fiber Rolls: Fiber rolls may be used for several different applications, including but not limited to perimeter control, grade break and separation, and alternate PGCC 9-6-2023
3 check dam. They shall not be used on paved or hardscape media. Temporary fiber rolls installed to control erosion and sedimentation during construction shall be removed once construction is complete. c. Stabilized Construction Entrances and Exits: Stabilized construction entrances and exits shall be placed at ingress and egress points of the disturbance area.
4. Construction padding material, if required, shall be free of any weed seeds, contaminants, or pollutants.
5. No debris, silt, slash, sawdust, rubbish, cement, or concrete, or washings thereof; oil or petroleum products; or other organic or earthen material from any maintenance, construction, or associated activity of any nature shall be allowed to enter or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into sensitive habitats and potential aquatic resources in and surrounding the work areas.
6. Construction equipment with visible mud or dirt cakes on tracks, wheels, and undercarriage shall be power washed at a minimum of 100 feet from the limits of work areas to prevent weeds from entering the project site.
7. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be repaired and refueled a minimum of 100 feet from the limits of sensitive habitats and potential aquatic resources within and surrounding the work areas, including the disturbed dune scrub, to the maximum extent feasible. If refueling or repairing equipment or vehicles in or near sensitive habitats or aquatic resources within or surrounding the work areas is unavoidable, appropriate secondary containment shall be employed to prevent spills from entering these sensitive areas. Drip pans and spill containment materials shall always be present and accessible on the construction site.
PDF-4: Nesting Bird Survey. No grubbing, trimming, or clearing of vegetation from the project site shall occur during the general raptor and bird breeding season (January 15 through August 31). If grubbing, trimming, or clearing of vegetation cannot feasibly occur outside the general bird breeding season, a qualified person shall perform a pre-construction nesting bird survey no more than 1 week prior to the start of vegetation grubbing, trimming, or clearing to determine if active bird nests are present in the affected areas. Should an active bird nest be located, the qualified person shall establish a buffer and direct vegetation clearing away from the nest until it has been determined that the young have fledged or the nest has failed. If no nesting birds (including nest building or other breeding or nesting behavior) are in the construction area, grubbing, trimming, or clearing shall proceed.
Project Location
The survey area is in the City of Pacific Grove in Monterey County (County), California, at 36.628508 N, −121.935744 W (Figures 1 and 2). The survey area is composed of three segments, Railroad Way, Asilomar Avenue, and Arena Avenue, which differ in vegetation community and land use composition. The Asilomar Dunes and Arena Avenue segments occur within the Asilomar Dunes Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area and Coastal Zone Planning Area VI of the Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan, which provides policies and guidelines for land use and development in the Pacific Grove Coastal Zone (City of Pacific Grove 2020). The Railroad Way segment is to the east, within the Coastal Zone Planning Area V and outside the Asilomar Dunes habitat area.
Environmental Setting
The following subsections serve to describe the existing conditions in the survey area.
Land Use
The Asilomar Avenue and Arena Avenue segments are in a low-density residential portion of the City and include large, spread-out single-family residential properties including and surrounded by open sand dunes previously altered by development,scattered remnant Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) and Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) trees, and other ornamental species planted for landscaping (Figure 2) (City of Pacific Grove 2020).
Sunset Drive, Asilomar State Beach, and the Pacific Ocean coastline border the Asilomar Avenue and Arena Avenue segments of the survey area to the west. The Railroad Way segment includes an established walking trail also used for municipal access that is surrounded by medium-density residential and commercial development and is approximately 0.3 mile east of the Pacific Ocean coastline (Figure 2).
PGCC 9-6-2023
4 Topography and Soils
The topography of the Asilomar Avenue and Arena Avenue segments is gently sloping, decreasing in elevation from east to west. The topography of the Railroad Way segment is primarily flat. Elevation in the survey area ranges from approximately 20 feet to 105 feet above mean sea level (Figure 3, USGS Topographic Map). The survey area is in Township 15 south, Range 1 west, and Section 14 in the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Monterey Quadrangle.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service soil series search of the survey area included two soils, Baywood Sand (2 to 15 percent slopes) and Dune Land (USDA 2019) (Figure 4, Soils). A description of each soil series is provided below:
• Baywood Sand – The Baywood series consists of deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in old sand dunes near the coast with slopes of zero to 50 percent. This type of soil is typically found within a few miles of the coast from Sonoma to Santa Barbara Counties in California and comprises the majority, approximately 10 acres, of the survey area.
• Dune Land – Dune land consists of fine sand composed of primarily quartz and feldspar. It is found predominantly along the coast and comprises approximately 3.5 acres of the survey area.
The soil types that occur in the survey area are not classified as hydric (wetland) soils and do not have potential to contain hydric inclusions (USDA 2019).
Hydrology
The project site is in the Soberanes Creek-Frontal Pacific Ocean Hydrologic Unit of the Central Coast Watershed (180600060203). Based on the National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrologic Dataset mapping results, no aquatic resources are documented in the survey area (USFWS 2022a; USGS 2022). Two potentially aquatic resources, preliminarily determined to be erosional drainages, were observed in the southern portion of the survey area along Arena Avenue outside the project site. These potential aquatic features were likely constructed or formed from periodic surface stormwater flows directed away from the residence south of the survey area in this location. Upland and developed land surround these two erosional drainages. There is potential for these erosional drainages to flow into the Pacific Ocean, which is defined as a traditional navigable water (TNW) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), approximately 0.1 mile to the west (USACE 2022).
Further discussion on potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources is provided in the Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources section below.
Climate
The survey area is in Monterey County on the Monterey Peninsula. On a regional level, the County has a Mediterranean climate, which is characterized by wet winters and dry summers. The Monterey Peninsula is defined by the Pacific Ocean and the Santa Lucia Range. Monterey Bay’s bottom is 2 miles deep, which lowers the surface temperatures of the bay and influences temperatures inland. Monterey Bay acts as a funnel, channeling ocean air into the Salinas Valley and Santa Lucia Highlands. Habitats in the Monterey County region include both mesic (moist) habitats, such as redwood forest, and xeric habitats, such as coastal scrub. Generalized climate in the region is characterized by warm, dry summers and cold, moist winters, which pushes the growing season to the wet months of the year (late winter to early spring). Vegetation often goes dormant (senescent) during the later summer months until initial rains start in the fall. The rainy season in the County typically lasts from October through March and has an annual winter precipitation average of approximately 18 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2022).
PGCC 9-6-2023
5 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Endangered Species Act (U.S. Code, Title 16, Sections 1531 through 1543) The federal Endangered Species Act and subsequent amendments prohibit the “take” (i.e., harm, harass, or kill individuals, or destroy associated habitat) of species federally listed as threatened or endangered. Take incidental to otherwise lawful activities can be authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through a permit under Sections 4(d), 7, or 10(a).
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (U.S. Code, Title 16, Sections 703 through 711) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is the domestic law that affirms or implements a commitment by the United States to four international conventions (Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. The MBTA makes it unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds. The law also applies to the removal of nests occupied by migratory birds during the breeding season. The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, pursue, molest, or disturb these species, their nests, or their eggs anywhere in the United States.
Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 401 (40 CFR 121). Section 401 of the CWA gives the state authority to grant, deny, or waive certification of proposed federally licensed or permitted activities resulting in discharge to waters of the United States. The State Water Resources Control Board directly regulates multi-regional projects and supports the Section 401 certification and wetlands program statewide. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the federal CWA, which specifies that certification from the state is required for any applicant requesting a federal license or permit to conduct any activity, including but not limited to the construction or operation of facilities that may result in any discharge into navigable waters.
The certification shall originate from the state or appropriate interstate water pollution control agency in/where the discharge originates or will originate. Any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the CWA.
CWA, Section 404 (33 CFR 328.3[a]). These provisions regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities that discharge dredge or fill material into waters of the United States can be authorized by the USACE.
The USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have issued a set of guidance documents detailing the process for determining CWA jurisdiction over waters of the United States following the 2008 Rapanos decision. The USEPA and USACE issued a summary memorandum of the guidance for implementing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos that addresses the jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the CWA. The complete set of guidance documents, summarized as key points below, was used to collect relevant data for evaluation by the USEPA and USACE to determine CWA jurisdiction over the project and to complete the “significant nexus test” as detailed in the guidelines.
The significant nexus test includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors. For circumstances such as those described in Point B below, the significant nexus test would take into account physical indicators of flow (evidence of an ordinary high water mark [OHWM]) if a hydrologic connection to a TNW exists and if the aquatic functions of the water body have a significant effect (more than speculative or insubstantial) on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. The USACE and USEPA will apply the significant nexus standard to assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary drainage to determine if it significantly affects the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the downstream TNW.
Wetlands (including swamps, bogs, seasonal wetlands, seeps, marshes, and similar areas) are also considered waters of the United States and are defined by the USACE as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances PGCC 9-6-2023
6 do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3[b]; 40 CFR 230.3[t]). Indicators of three wetland parameters (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetlands hydrology), as determined by field investigation, must be present for a site to be classified as a wetland by the USACE (USACE 1987).
Rapanos Guidance Key Points Summary
A. The USACE and USEPA will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
• TNWs
• Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
• Non-navigable tributaries of TNWs that are relatively permanent (flows 3 months or longer) • Wetlands that abut such tributaries
B. The USACE and USEPA will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on whether they have a significant nexus with a TNW:
• Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent • Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent • Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary C. The USACE and USEPA will not assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
• Swales or erosional features (gullies, small washes characterized by low-volume, infrequent, or short-duration flow)
• Ditches (including roadside ditches) that are excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water
The Navigable Waters Protection Rule, published by the USACE and USEPA on April 21, 2020, was vacated during a federal court ruling in Arizona (Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. USEPA) on August 30, 2021. With this ruling, the regulatory agencies have halted implementation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule and are interpreting “waters of the United States” consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime (i.e., Rapanos guidance).
State
Birds of Prey Protection Provision (California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5) This provision prohibits the taking of birds of prey (Orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes), including their nests and eggs.
California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 2050 et seq.) The California Endangered Species Act prohibits any activities that would jeopardize or take a species designated as threatened or endangered by the state.
Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600) The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) requires any person who proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, or their tributaries or use materials from a streambed to submit a notification for a Streambed Alteration Agreement to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
California Fish and Game Code, Section 1602
Section 1602 regulates water resources in the State of California. Activities that divert or obstruct the natural flow of or change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river stream or lake may be authorized by the CDFW. CDFW jurisdiction includes intermittent and perennial watercourses and extends to the top of the bank of a stream or lake if unvegetated or to the limit of the adjacent riparian vegetation, located contiguous to the watercourse, if the stream or lake is vegetated.
PGCC 9-6-2023
7 California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503
Section 3503 of the CFGC prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nests or eggs of any birds except as otherwise provided by the CFGC or any regulation made pursuant thereto.
California Environmental Quality Act, as Amended (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) The goal of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is to assist California public agencies in identifying potential significant negative environmental impacts caused by their actions and avoiding or mitigating those impacts when feasible.
California Fully Protected Wildlife Species Provision (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515)
These provisions prohibit the take of fully protected birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish.
California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900–1913) These provisions preserve, protect, and enhance endangered or rare native plants of the state.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The RWQCB regulates impacts on water quality under Section 401 of the CWA. A project must comply with Section 401 of the CWA before the USACE can issue a Section 404 Permit. The RWQCB will issue a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or Waiver of Certification depending on the extent of impacts on waters of the United States.
The RWQCB also regulates impacts on waters of the state (usually limited to “isolated” waters or swales that may not fall under USACE jurisdiction) under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne).
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne is regulated by the RWQCB for impacts on waters of the state. The RWQCB is the regional agency responsible for protecting water quality in California. The jurisdiction of this agency includes waters of the state and waters of the United States as mandated by Section 401 in the CWA and Porter-Cologne. Although water quality issues related to impacts on waterways are normally addressed during Section 401 Water Quality Certification, should a water of the State of California be determined by the USACE to not have CWA jurisdiction, Porter-Cologne would be addressed under a Construction General Permit, State General Waste Discharge Order, or Waste Discharge Requirements depending on the level of impact and the properties of the waterway.
Local
City of Pacific Grove General Plan
The City of Pacific Grove General Plan Natural Resources Element provides the following goals and policies that apply to the project and the vegetation communities, wildlife habitat, and aquatic resources in the survey area (City of Pacific Grove 1994):
• Goal 1: Comprehensively manage Pacific Grove’s vegetation and wildlife habitat. • Policy 4: Mitigate development in environmentally sensitive areas. • Goal 2: Protect Pacific Grove’s coastal resources.
• Goal 4: Protect Pacific Grove’s water and marine resources. • Policy 9: Prohibit the unsafe use of chemical pesticides and herbicides. • Goal 5: Protect Pacific Grove’s biological resources. • Goal 6: Protect endangered species.
• Policy 12: Develop methods to maintain endangered species within the Asilomar Dunes neighborhood, Asilomar State Beach and Conference Grounds, the U.S. Coast Guard Reservation, the Pacific Grove shoreline, and other appropriate areas.
PGCC 9-6-2023
8 City of Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program
The Pacific Grove LCP is a planning tool used by the City in partnership with the California Coastal Commission to guide development in the Pacific Grove Coastal Zone (City of Pacific Grove 2015). The Pacific Grove LCP consists of the City’s Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan (Zoning Ordinances, Zoning District Maps, etc.) that implement the provisions and policies of the Pacific Grove LCP (City of Pacific Grove 2020). The Pacific Grove Coastal Zone is broken into seven planning areas. The Land Use Plan contains written policies that provide direction for decision-makers, property owners, and the public regarding the types and intensities of land uses that are most suited to each coastal area. The Pacific Grove LCP requires coastal development permits for any development within the Coastal Zone, including project activities that require grading, design review, and conditional use permits.
The Asilomar Avenue and Arena Avenue segments occur within the Asilomar Dunes Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area and Coastal Zone Planning Area VI of the Pacific Grove LCP Land Use Plan, which provides policies and guidelines for land use and development in the Pacific Grove Coastal Zone (City of Pacific Grove 2020). The Railroad Way segment is located within Coastal Zone Planning Area V. Therefore, project activities in these three segments are subject to the policies and requirements outlined in the Pacific Grove LCP.
Methods
This biological resources analysis includes the results of a database review and biological resources survey that serve to document the existing biological conditions of the survey area. The results of the database review provide information on the permitting requirements and potential constraints to project construction due to the presence (or lack thereof) of sensitive biological resources.
Database Review
A review of online databases including the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2022a), CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) (CDFW 2022b), USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) (USFWS 2022b), USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2022a), Consortium of California Herbaria database (CCH 2022), Calflora database (Calflora 2022), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022) was conducted for the project and within a 1-mile radius of the survey area.
Field Reconnaissance Survey
A biological resources survey of the survey area was conducted by a Harris biologist on October 6, 2022. A 100-foot buffer was used for the 2022 biological resources survey where feasible. The survey was conducted by walking meandering transects throughout the survey area and mapping vegetation communities, documenting plant and wildlife species, noting suitable habitat, and evaluating the potential for occurrence of sensitive, rare, threatened, and endangered plant and wildlife species (Attachment 2, Observed Wildlife and Plant Species). Vegetation mapping was recorded in the field using the ArcGIS Collector application with an aerial image of the survey area.
A list of plant and wildlife species observed or detected in the survey area was prepared. Plant species were identified in the field or later in the laboratory with the aid of voucher specimens. Wildlife species were identified in the field by direct visual observation with the aid of binoculars or indirectly by detection of calls, tracks, burrows, or scat. The potential for sensitive plant and wildlife species to occur in the survey area is presented in Table 2, Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area, in the Results section.
The results of this analysis provide information on the potential constraints to project development due to the presence of special-status biological resources. No focused wildlife, plant, or other surveys were conducted as part of this analysis.
Survey Limitations
Plants and wildlife were identified by direct observation, vocalizations, or other observance, including tracks, scat, and other signs. Therefore, lists of species observed are not necessarily comprehensive because species can be PGCC 9-6-2023
9 outside their blooming period, nocturnal, secretive, or within the region and survey area seasonally (i.e., during migration) and, therefore, may not have been observed.
Some areas within the 100-foot buffer were not accessible on foot due to private property constraints; therefore, these areas were either surveyed with binoculars or avoided entirely.
Results
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
The survey area is in the central western California region of the California Floristic Province (Jepson eFlora 2022).
Three vegetation communities and land cover types were identified in the survey area and include disturbed dune scrub, disturbed (ruderal) habitat, and urban/developed land (Holland 1986; CDFW 2022c) (Figure 5, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types). Table 1, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the Survey Area, presents the acreages of the vegetation communities that occur in the survey area. Figure 5 presents the vegetation community and land cover type boundaries.
Table 1. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the Survey Area Vegetation Community and Land Cover Type Survey Area (acres)1 Sensitivity Ranking2 Scrub-Shrub
Dune scrub (disturbed) 3.2 G1S1
Disturbed/Developed
Disturbed (ruderal) habitat 4.1 None
Urban/developed land 6.2 None
Subtotal 10.3 —
Total 13.5 —
Sources: Holland 1986; CDFW 2022a, 2022c.
Notes: None = No sensitivity ranking 1 Acreages rounded up to one-hundredth. 2 CNDDB rarity ranking. NatureServe Global (G) and State (S) rarity rankings are between 1 and 5 and are interpreted as follows: 1 = critically imperiled; at very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often five or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors; 2 = imperiled; at high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors; 3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction; at moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors; 4 = apparently secure; uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors; 5 = secure; demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure; common; widespread and abundant (CDFW 2022a).
The vegetation communities observed in the survey area are described in the following subsections.
Scrub-Shrub Vegetation Community
Dune Scrub (Disturbed)
Dune scrub is a dense coastal scrub community of scattered shrubs, subshrubs, and herbs (Holland 1986). Dune scrub is restricted to the coast on stabilized back dune slopes, ridges, and flats and often colonized by foredune species. Typical species includes goldenbush (Ericameria sp.), lupines (Lupinussp.), and beach sagewort (Artemisia pycnocephala). Dune scrub is considered a sensitive vegetation community (CDFW 2022a).
Approximately 3.2 acres of disturbed dune scrub occurs in the Asilomar Avenue and Arena Avenue segments of the survey area (Figure 5). Previous residential development has completely altered the natural topography of the dunes and altered the plant composition. The disturbed dune scrub in the Asilomar Avenue segment is dominated by non-native Chilean sea fig (Carpobrotus chilensis), with coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and smooth cat’s ear (Hypochaeris glabra) throughout and shows evidence of modification from the planting of non-native ornamental species from the surrounding residential development. In comparison, the disturbed dune scrub in Arena Avenue segment is dominated by native species, including beach sagewort and dune sedge grass (Carex pansa), with PGCC 9-6-2023
10 scattered goldenbush, seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium), liveforever (Dudleya sp.), pink sand verbena (Abronia umbellata), California aster (Symphyotrichum chilense), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Although the dune scrub in the Arena Avenue segment supports more native species, this area is characterized as disturbed because of large open weedy patches, apparent historical modification from the surrounding development, and current disturbance from pedestrians as evidenced by bicycle tire tracks and footprints.
Disturbed (Ruderal) Habitat/Developed Lands
Disturbed (Ruderal) Habitat
Disturbed (ruderal) habitat consists of previously disturbed areas that either are devoid of vegetation (dirt roads/trails) or support scattered non-native plant species, such as escaped ornamentals or ruderal exotic species that take advantage of disturbance, such as short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), black mustard (Brassica nigra), filaree (Erodium spp.), and other weedy grass species. These species are opportunistic and typically found in recently and/or repeatedly disturbed habitats, particularly in areas that have been graded, have been cleared for fuel management purposes, and/or experience ongoing use that prevents natural revegetation.
Approximately 4.1 acres of disturbed (ruderal) habitat occurs throughout the survey area (Figure 5). Disturbed (ruderal) habitat in the survey area is dominated by ornamentally planted grasses and vegetation, walking trails, and access roads for residences.
Urban/Developed Land
Urban/developed land represents areas that have been constructed on or otherwise physically altered to an extent that native vegetation communities are not supported. This land cover type generally consists of semi-permanent structures, homes, parking lots, pavement or hardscape, and landscaped areas that require maintenance and irrigation (e.g., ornamental greenbelts). Typically, this land cover type is unvegetated or supports a variety of ornamental plants and landscaping.
Approximately 6.2 acres of urban/developed land occurs throughout the majority of the survey area and includes residential properties and transportation infrastructure (Figure 5).
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
A formal aquatic resources delineation was not conducted in the survey area during the 2022 biological resources survey. Two potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources were observed in the southern portion of the survey area along Arena Avenue adjacent to a private residence (Figure 6, Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources). These two features were preliminarily determined to be erosional drainages and were likely constructed or formed from periodic surface stormwater flows directed away from the residence south of the survey area in this location.
These two erosional drainages are surrounded by upland, disturbed habitat, and developed land (Figure 6). The two erosional drainages are outside of the project impact area and disturbance of these potential aquatic resources is not expected to occur during construction.
The two erosional drainages observed in the southern portion of the survey area are not documented as aquatic resources based on the National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrologic Dataset mapping results (USFWS 2022a; USGS 2022). However, if avoidance of these erosional drainages is determined to not be feasible, a formal aquatic resources delineation would be required to establish if they have direct surface water connections to the Pacific Ocean, which is defined as a TNW by the USACE, approximately 0.1 mile to the west (USACE 2022). The formal aquatic resources delineation would be used to determine if the two erosional drainages are under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA and Section 1602 of the CFGC Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement.
Plant Species
Attachment 2 lists the vascular plant species observed in the survey area during the 2022 biological resources survey. Seventeen plant species were identified to genus in the survey area, 11 (65 percent) of which were native and six (35 percent) of which were non-native. Two sensitive plant species, Monterey cypress and Monterey pine, PGCC 9-6-2023
11 were identified in the survey area during the 2022 biological resources survey (Figure 7, Sensitive Species Observed). An abundance of ornamental plantings is in the survey area due to residential development. It is important to note that the 2022 biological resources survey was conducted outside the blooming period for the majority of the sensitive plant species with potential to occur in the survey area, and these sensitive species may not have been able to be identified because they may have already gone into senescence and could not be identified to species or were no longer above ground and, therefore, not visible for identification.
Arena Avenue can be described as disturbed dune scrub habitat, mixed with disturbed habitat, and developed land. The areas that contain remnant dune scrub habitat have been significantly altered and continue to be highly disturbed by not only the immediate surrounding residential uses and municipal development but also with foot and bicycle traffic. The dominant native plant species were beach (dune) sagewort and coyote brush, followed by seacliff buckwheat and sand dune sedge. Pink sand verbena and an unknown species of stonecrop (liveforever [Dudleya albiflora]) succulent were also observed throughout the disturbed scrub area to the west. The dominant non-native species observed was Chilean sea fig.
Asilomar Avenue contained many live and dead Monterey pines. The observed individuals are likely remnants of a long-gone Monterey pine forest that was mostly cleared of trees during construction of the residence occupying this portion of the survey area. This likely significantly modified the amount and coverage of this species. Highly disturbed dune scrub areas are west of the residence and former Monterey pine stand. One Monterey cypress was identified on the far western edge of the survey area long Sunset Drive near the edge of the access road to the residential property on the project site. The project site overall along Asilomar Avenue is dominated by Chilean sea fig. Coyote brush, dune grasses, and California goldenbush (Ericameria ericoides) are dotted throughout.
Invasive pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) was observed in the north-central portion.
Railroad Way is mostly developed and is characterized by the ornamental planted Bermuda grasses (Cynodon dactylon) and other shrubs and trees throughout that line a walking trail through the middle of the area. In the southern portion of Railroad Way is a row of large evergreens, some of which are cypresses. It was not determined what type of cypress they are, but they are potentially Monterey cypress. It is likely that they were purposefully planted along the walking path that also serves as a municipal access road.
The sensitive plant species with potential to occur in the survey area are discussed in the Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species section.
Wildlife Species
Attachment 2 lists the wildlife species observed in the survey area during the 2022 biological resources survey.
Five native wildlife species, red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma california), California mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus californicus), and northern Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra), were documented as occurring in the survey area. No sensitive wildlife species were observed in the survey area during the 2022 biological resources survey.
Mule deer are abundant in the survey area and in the larger surrounding Pacific Grove area. Mule deer scat was observed on a driveway edge along Arena Avenue. Although the project site contains a large ungulate species in high numbers, it is unlikely that other large mammals are using the survey area as major routes of movement or refugia. A northern Sierran treefrog was heard calling in the area containing pampas grass in the north-central portion of the survey area. The survey area does not provide ample opportunities for sensitive reptile and amphibians due to the highly disturbed nature of the area and dense suburban environment, but some areas may provide foraging, nursery, and refugia opportunities for common species such as Sierran tree frogs and coast range fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis biseriatus). The Monterey Peninsula is directly within the Pacific Flyway, and it is to be expected that many migratory birds, including seabird species foraging over the open ocean, would be observed. Plenty of nesting opportunities occur for local breeding birds in the many native and ornamental trees and scrub habitat in the survey area. The City is also known as an overwintering monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) destination where individuals of this species gather and roost by the thousands on eucalyptus PGCC 9-6-2023
12 (Eucalyptus sp.), cypress (Hesperocyparis sp.), and pine (Pinus sp.) trees. The survey area contains many pine and several cypress trees that may provide roosting habitat for overwintering monarch butterflies.
The sensitive wildlife species with potential to occur in the survey area are discussed in the Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species section.
Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species
This section includes sensitive plant and wildlife species, including nesting birds and critical habitat, as defined by the CDFW, CNPS, and USFWS (CDFW 2022a, 2022b; CNPS 2022; USFWS 2022b). Sensitive species are those recognized by federal or state agencies as being potentially vulnerable to impacts because of rarity, local or regional reductions in population numbers, isolation/restricted genetic flow, or other factors. Sensitive plants include those listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing by the USFWS and CDFW; those considered sensitive by the CDFW; and those species included in the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) inventory maintained by the CNPS. Sensitive wildlife species include those listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing by the USFWS and CDFW or those considered sensitive by the CDFW.
As described in the Database Review section, distributions of historical sensitive species observations within the project vicinity were reviewed in preparation of this letter report. For the purposes of this biological constraints analysis, those species that either are known to occur or have some potential to occur within the vicinity of the project site are addressed in this section. Figure 8, Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area, presents the CNDDB database results for sensitive species with potential to occur on the project site and within a 1-mile radius. Database results (i.e., CNPS, IPaC) that did not provide GIS mapping data are listed in Table 2 and are not shown on Figure 8. Table 2 provides the list of sensitive plant and wildlife species that have potential to occur, along with an assessment of their potential for occurrence on the project site. Listing status, habitat requirements, and observation or potential for occurrence information is also provided in Table 2.
Review of the USFWS IPaC database returned 50 migratory bird species protected under the MBTA that are not listed under the federal Endangered Species Act but are otherwise considered sensitive (i.e., USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern) and have known locations within 1 mile of the project site. Although some of these species may be California State Species of Special Concern, no historical locations are known on the project site, and they did not appear on CNDDB search results. Three of these 50 migratory bird species, Allen’s hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii), and Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), have high potential to occur as nesting pairs or found foraging on the project site. These species are discussed in Table 2. The other 47 species either are not expected to be found nesting or foraging on the project site or have low potential to be foraging only and, therefore, are not discussed further in this letter report.
PGCC 9-6-2023
13 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Plants
Arctostaphylos
hookeri ssp.
hookeri
Hooker’s
manzanita
None/None/1B.2 Prefers sandy soils in
closed-cone
coniferous forest,
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal
scrub. Blooms Jan.–
Jun. Elevation 195–
1,760 feet amsl.
Not Expected. Databases show
several points attributed to
Pacific Grove from 1900 and
prior, which are likely
extirpated (Figure 8). Another
location is unspecific; mapped
“1.5 miles inland from Point
Joe,” south of the survey area.
Scrub habitat available within
the survey area, but area is
greatly disturbed. No known
locations known within survey
area, and the project site is
out of the elevational range of
this species (CDFW 2022a;
CNPS 2022; Calflora 2022).
Arctostaphylos
pumila
Sandmat
manzanita
None/None/1B.2 Occurs in sandy
openings in coastal
dunes, coastal scrub,
cismontane
woodland, maritime
chaparral, and closedcone coniferous
forests. Blooms Feb.–
May. Elevation 10–
675 feet amsl.
High. Sandy openings in dune
scrub habitat available.
Historical location from 1980
mapped as occurring within
survey area on western end of
Arena Avenue, but individual
plant not observed during
survey (Figure 8) (CDFW
2022a; CNPS 2022; Calflora
2022).
Arenaria
paludicola
Marsh
sandwort
FE/SE/1B.1 Found in brackish and
freshwater marshes
and swamps. Blooms
May–Aug. Elevation
10–560 feet amsl.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Historical
location within 1 mile of
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
No known locations within
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
Astragalus
tener var. titi
Coastal dunes
milk-vetch
FE/SE/1B.1 Found in mesic and
vernally mesic
habitats, within sandy
coastal bluff scrub,
mesic coastal prairie,
and coastal dune
habitats. Blooms
Mar.–May. Elevation
5–165 feet amsl.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Historical
location within 1 mile of
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
No known locations within
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
PGCC 9-6-2023
14 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Castilleja
ambigua
Pink Johnny-nip None/None/1B.1 Occurs in coastal
prairie and coastal
scrub habitats.
Blooms May–Aug.
Elevation 0–330 feet
amsl.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Historical
location exists within 0.5 mile
southeast of survey area
(Figure 8). No known locations
within survey area (CDFW
2022a; CNPS 2022; Calflora
2022).
Chorizanthe
pungens var.
pungens
Monterey
spineflower
FT/None/1B.2 Occurs in sandy soils
in maritime chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, coastal
dunes, coastal scrub,
and valley and foothill
grasslands. Blooms
Apr.–Jun. (Jul.–Aug.).
Elevation 10–1,475
feet amsl.
High. Scrub habitat available
within the survey area, but
area is greatly disturbed, and
no locations known within
project site. Historical
locations exist less than 0.25
mile from survey area (Figure
8) (CDFW 2022a; CNPS 2022;
Calflora 2022).
Clarkia
jolonensis
Jolon clarkia None/None/1B.2 Occurs in chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, coastal
scrub, and riparian
woodland. Blooms
Apr.–Jun. Elevation
65–2,165 feet amsl.
Not Expected. Databases show
several points attributed to
Pacific Grove from prior to
1910 (Figure 8). Scrub habitat
available within the survey
area, but area is greatly
disturbed, and no known
locations within survey area
(CDFW 2022a; CNPS 2022;
Calflora 2022).
Collinsia
multicolor
San Francisco
collinsia
None/None/1B.2 Found in closed-cone
coniferous forest and
coastal scrub.
Sometimes in
serpentinite habitats.
Blooms (Feb.) Mar.–
May. Elevation 100–
900 feet amsl.
Not Expected. This location is
unspecific and exact
information is not known.
Other historical and current
known populations are more
than 10 miles away from the
survey area (CDFW 2022a;
CNPS 2022; Calflora 2022).
Delphinium
hutchinsonsiae
Hutchinson’s
larkspur
None/None/1B.2 Occurs in broadleaf
upland forest,
chaparral, coastal
prairie, and coastal
scrub. Blooms Mar.–
Jun. Elevation 0–1,400
feet amsl.
Low. Historical location prior
to 1950 and location
unspecific in Pacific Grove
near “Asilomar” (Figure 8).
Scrub habitat available within
the survey area, but area is
greatly disturbed, and no
known locations occur within
survey area (CDFW 2022a;
CNPS 2022; Calflora 2022).
PGCC 9-6-2023
15 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Erysimum
menziesii
Menzies’
wallflower
FE/SE/1B.1 Occurs in coastal
dunes. Blooms Mar.–
Jun. Elevation 0–115
feet amsl.
High. Historical location
mapped as a polygon that falls
within the survey area and
project site at Arena Avenue,
however, description says
Asilomar State Beach in dunes
(Figure 8). Survey conducted
outside blooming period.
Species not observed during
survey. Polygon may be larger
than individuals exist (Figure
8) (CDFW 2022a; CNPS 2022;
Calflora 2022).
Gilia tenuiflora
ssp. arenaria
Monterey gilia FE/ST/1B.2 Prefers sandy
openings in
cismontane
woodland, maritime
chaparral, coastal
dunes, and coastal
scrub. Associated with
Lupinus tidestromii
ssp. tidestromii and
Polygonum
paronychia. Blooms
Apr.–Jun. Elevation 0–
150 feet.
Not Expected. Historical
(before 2000) and recent
(2017) locations less than 0.75
mile south of survey area
(Figure 8). Sandy openings in
dune scrub available on the
project site, although habitat
is greatly disturbed. No known
locations within survey area,
and no associations observed
within survey area (CDFW
2022a; CNPS 2022; Calflora
2022).
Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa
Monterey
cypress
None/None/1B.2 Occurs in (or as a)
closed-cone
coniferous forest
from 35 to 100 feet
amsl. Perennial
evergreen tree.
Present. Observed within
survey area near Arena
Avenue, Asilomar Avenue,
and potentially Railroad Way
(Figure 7). Historical locations
within 1 mile of survey area
(Figure 8; CNPS 2022; Calflora
2022).
Horkelia
cuneata var.
sericea
Kellogg’s
horkelia
None/None/1B.1 Prefers openings
(sometimes gravelly
or sandy) in closedcone coniferous
forests, maritime
chaparral, coastal
dunes, and coastal
scrub. Blooms Apr.–
Sep. Elevation 35–655
feet amsl.
Not Expected. Historical
locations prior to 1940 and
location unspecific in Pacific
Grove near “Asilomar . . . in
wind-swept grassy dunes”
(Figure 8). Scrub habitat
available within the survey
area, but area is greatly
disturbed and lacks open
grassy dunes. No known
locations within survey area
(CDFW 2022a; CNPS 2022;
Calflora 2022).
PGCC 9-6-2023
16 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Layia carnosa Beach layia FT/SE/1B.1 Found in sandy
coastal scrub and
coastal dunes. Blooms
Mar.–Jul. Elevation 0–
195 feet amsl.
Low. Sandy dune scrub habitat
present but is highly disturbed.
Known from Asilomar State
Beach northern end with
Tidestrom’s lupine in stabilized
open dune (Figure 8). Other
locations in Pacific Grove likely
extirpated. No known
locations within survey area
(CDFW 2022a; CNPS 2022;
Calflora 2022).
Lupinus
tidestromii
Tidestrom’s
lupine
FE/SE/1B.1 Occurs in open coastal
dunes from zero to
330 feet amsl. Blooms
Apr.–Jun.
Low. Known locations near
Point Pinos, Asilomar State
Beach in dunes near
Conference grounds and
Sunset Drive, and Moss Beach
and Spanish Bay Dunes near
golf course (Figure 8). No
known locations within survey
area. Coastal dunes within
survey area, but area is highly
disturbed (CDFW 2022a; CNPS
2022; Calflora 2022).
Malacothamnus
palmeri var.
involucratus
Carmel Valley
bush-mallow
None/None/1B.2 Prefers openings in
chaparral but also
found in cismontane
woodland and coastal
scrub. Blooms Apr.–
Oct. Elevation 100–
3,610 feet amsl.
Not Expected. Historical
location is unspecific, and
exact information is not
known (Figure 8). Other
historical and current known
populations are more than 5
miles away (CDFW 2022a;
CNPS 2022; Calflora 2022).
Microseris
paludosa
Marsh
microseris
None/None/1B.2 Found in moist valley
and foothill grassland,
open cismontane
woodland, and closedcone coniferous forest
habitats. Blooms
Apr.–Jun. (Jul).
Elevation 15–1,165
feet amsl.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Historical
location is unspecific, and
information states either
further than 1 mile or in pine
woods in Pacific Grove (Figure
8). Other historical and current
known populations are more
than 1 mile away. No known
locations within the survey
area (CDFW 2022a; CNPS
2022; Calflora 2022).
PGCC 9-6-2023
17 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Monardella
sinuata ssp.
nigrescens
Northern curlyleaved
monardella
None/None/1B.2 Occurs in sandy
coastal dunes and
openings in sandy
coastal scrub in
Monterey County.
Blooms (Apr.) May–
Jul. (Sep.). Elevation
0–985 feet amsl.
Low. Suitable habitat present,
but habitat is disturbed.
Historical location is
unspecific, and information
states it was found in 1932 in
stabilized sand dunes (Figure
8). No known locations within
the survey area (CDFW 2022a;
CNPS 2022; Calflora 2022).
Piperia yadonii Yadon’s rein
orchid
FE/None/1B.1 Occurs in sandy
coastal bluff scrub,
closed-cone
coniferous forest, and
maritime chaparral.
Blooms (Feb.) May–
Aug. Elevation 35–
1,675 feet amsl.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Known
locations are extant or
possibly extirpated along 17
Mile Drive south of Sinex and
north of Navajo and
Washington Park, respectively
(Figure 8). No known locations
within survey area (CDFW
2022a; CNPS 2022; Calflora
2022).
Pinus radiata Monterey pine None/None/1B.1 Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest and
cismontane
woodland.
Present. Multiple living and
remnant dead individuals
observed within survey area
near Asilomar Avenue (Figure
7). Only three native stands of
Monterey pines exist in
California at Año Nuevo,
Cambria, and the Monterey
Peninsula. Historical locations
are not known within survey
area but within 1 mile (CDFW
2022a; CNPS 2022; Calflora
2022).
Potentilla
hickmanii
Hickman’s
cinquefoil
FE/SE/1B.1 Occurs in coastal bluff
scrub, closed-cone
coniferous forest,
vernally mesic
meadows and seeps,
and freshwater
marshes and swamps.
Blooms Apr.–Aug.
Elevation 35–490 feet
amsl.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Historical
location within 1 mile from
survey area. No known
locations within survey area
(USFWS 2022b).
Rosa pinetorum Pine rose None/None/1B.2 Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest and
cismontane woodland
from 5 to 3100 feet.
Blooms May–Jul.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Known
location near Point Pinos
Lighthouse (Figure 8). No
known locations within survey
area (CDFW 2022a; CNPS
2022; Calflora 2022).
PGCC 9-6-2023
18 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Sidalcea
malachroides
Maple-leaved
checkerbloom
None/None/4.2 Occurs in coastal
prairie, broadleaf
upland forest, riparian
woodland, North
Coast coniferous
forest, and coastal
scrub habitats, often
in disturbed areas.
Blooms (Mar.) Apr.–
Aug. Elevation 0–
2,395 feet amsl.
Low. Disturbed coastal dune
scrub habitat present within
project site, but no openings
within woodlands available.
Known location within 1 mile
of survey area but likely
extirpated and record is prior
to 1890 (Figure 8). No known
locations within survey area
(CDFW 2022a; CNPS 2022;
Calflora 2022).
Trifolium
hydrophilum
Saline clover None/None/1B.2 Occurs in vernal pools,
marshes and swamps,
and mesic and alkaline
valley and foothill
grasslands. Blooms
Apr.–Jun. Elevation 0–
985 feet.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Historical
locations exist unspecific in
region prior to 1905 in open
dry ground in forest (Figure 8).
No known locations in the
survey area (CDFW 2022a;
CNPS 2022; Calflora 2022).
Trifolium
polyodon
Pacific Grove
clover
None/CR/1B.1 Found in granitic or
mesic soils in closedcone coniferous
forest, coastal prairie,
meadows and seeps,
and valley and foothill
grasslands. Blooms
Apr.–Jun. (Jul.).
Elevation 15–1,395
feet amsl.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Historical
locations exist less than 0.5
mile to the southeast but none
in the survey area (Figure 8)
(CDFW 2022a; CNPS 2022;
Calflora 2022).
Trifolium
trichocalyx
Monterey
clover
FE/SE/1B.1 Found in burned areas
and sandy openings in
closed-cone
coniferous forest.
Blooms Apr.–Jun.
Elevation 100–1,000
feet amsl.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Historical
location within 1 mile from
survey area. No known
locations within survey area
(USFWS 2022b).
PGCC 9-6-2023
19 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Wildlife
Invertebrates
Bombus
occidentalis
Western
bumble bee
RFC/RSC/— Broadly distributed in
western North
America along Pacific
coast and inland to
middle western
states. Requires
suitable nesting site
for colonies, nectar
and pollen from floral
resources, and
suitable overwintering
sites for queens. Nests
occur primarily in
underground cavities
such as fossorial
mammal burrows and
prefer open west–
southwest slopes
bordered by trees but
can be found above
ground. Active
February to late
November.
Moderate. Suitable foraging
available throughout project
site; unknown if nesting
potential within survey area.
Mostly extirpated from
original range and is now
largely confined to higherelevation areas away from
development. Historical
locations within 1 mile of
survey area (collected in 1930s
from Point Pinos area) (Figure
8) (CDFW 2022a; USFWS
2022b).
Branchinecta
lynchi
Vernal pool
fairy shrimp
FT/None/— Occurs in ephemeral
freshwater habitats
including roadside
ditches and tire ruts,
clay flats, vernal lakes,
vernal pools, vernal
swales, and other
season wetlands and
depressions in
California. Occurs in
southern Oregon and
32 counties in
California.
Not Expected. No suitable
vernal pool or other
ephemeral pool habitat
available in the survey area.
Historical locations exist within
1 mile of the survey area
(USFWS 2022b).
PGCC 9-6-2023
20 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Danaus
plexippus
population 1
Monarch
butterfly
(overwintering
population)
FC/None/— Overwintering roots
are in eucalyptus
Monterey pines and
Monterey cypresses in
California.
High Potential Overwintering;
High Potential Migration.
Suitable overwintering habitat
available in all three locations
in survey area in the pines and
cypresses. High potential to fly
through. Historical locations
exist within 1 mile but none in
the survey area (Figure 8)
(CDFW 2022a; USFWS 2022b).
Pacific Grove contains mass
populations of monarchs in
winter.
Euphilotes
enoptes smithi
Smith’s blue
butterfly
FE/None/— Occurs an extremely
limited range in
Monterey Bay in
coastal dune, coastal
scrub, chaparral, and
grassland habitats
that contain seacliff
and coast buckwheat.
Moderate. Suitable seacliff
buckwheat available at Arena
Avenue in survey area only,
which is highly disturbed. No
suitable habitat at other two
project site locations.
Historical location within 1
mile of project site. No known
locations within survey area
(USFWS 2022b).
Fish
Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Tidewater goby FE/None/— Found in brackish
lagoons, estuaries,
and marshes along
the California coast.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Historical
location within 1 mile of
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
Amphibians
Rana draytonii California redlegged frogFT/ST/— Breeding habitats are aquatic, typically
ephemeral or
permanent pools, or
backwaters within
streams and creeks,
also ponds, marshes,
springs, dune ponds,
lagoons, cattle ponds,
and marshes.
Requires upland areas
for movement and
dispersal and areas for
refugia and
aestivation when
waters dry up.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Historical
location within 1 mile of
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
PGCC 9-6-2023
21 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Ambystoma
californiense
population 1
California tiger
salamander –
Central
California DPS
FT/ST/— Occurs in grassland,
oak savanna, and
mixed woodlands
edges or lower
elevation coniferous
forest edges. Will
migrate from
November through
May at night to seek
breeding ponds and
pools.
Not Expected. No suitable
habitat present. Historical
location within 1 mile from
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
Reptiles
Anniella pulchra
ssp. nigra
Black legless
lizard
None/SSC/— Occurs in moist warm
loose soil with plant
cover. Occurs in
sparsely vegetated
areas of beach dunes,
chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, desert
scrub, sandy washes,
and stream terraces
with sycamores,
cottonwoods, or oaks.
Leaf litter under trees
and bushes in sunny
areas and dunes
stabilized with bush
lupine and mock
heather often indicate
suitable habitat.
Low. Suitable (disturbed) dune
habitat is not on beach and is
not sparsely vegetated.
Collected in 1950s from Point
Pinos Lighthouse area (Figure
8). No known historical
locations within survey area
(CDFW 2022a).
Birds
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
(nesting)
Marbled
murrelet
FT/SE/— Spends majority of life
on open ocean,
resting and feeding in
near-shore marine
waters (1–3 miles out
in waters less than
100 feet), and comes
inland to nest in
mountains near coast.
Not Expected Foraging; Not
Expected Nesting. No suitable
open ocean habitat present
for foraging or mountain
habitat for nesting in survey
area. Known historical
locations within 1 mile. No
historical locations within
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
PGCC 9-6-2023
22 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
(nesting)
Western snowy
plover
FT/SSC/— Forages along
shoreline on open
beaches. Nests are
shallow scrapes or
depressions on flat,
open sandy areas or
areas with saline
substrates where
driftwood and
vegetation are absent
or sparse.
Not Expected Foraging; Not
Expected Nesting. No suitable
habitat present. Dune scrub
habitat is too dense with
vegetation and highly
disturbed. Known historical
locations within 1 mile are
prior to 1920 and are
unspecific (Figure 8). No
historical locations within
survey area (CDFW 2022a;
USFWS 2022b).
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
(nesting)
Western
yellow-billed
cuckoo
FT/SE/— Breeds in low- to
moderate-elevation
native forests lining
river and streams in
western United
States. Prefers
cottonwood-willow
forests.
Not Expected Foraging; Not
Expected Nesting. No suitable
cottonwood-willow riparian or
stream/riverside habitat
present for foraging or
mountain habitat for nesting
in survey area. Known
historical locations within 1
mile. No historical locations
within survey area (USFWS
2022b).
Coturnicops
noveboracensis
(nesting)
Yellow rail BCC/SSC/— Nests in shallow
freshwater sedge
marshes; winters in
wet meadows and
marshes with
cordgrass, saltgrass,
sedges, and other low
vegetation.
Not Expected Foraging; Not
Expected Nesting. No suitable
marsh or meadow habitat
present. Known historical
locations within 1 mile are
prior to 1980 from Crespi Pond
(Figure 8). No historical
locations within survey area
(CDFW 2022a; USFWS 2022b).
Empidonax
traillii extimus
(nesting)
Southwestern
willow
flycatcher
FE/SE/— Breeds in patchy to
dense riparian habitats
with water present.
Usually found in
riparian woodlands
with a well-developed
canopy and a thick
understory but not
uniformly dense.
Restricted to a few
known breeding sites
in San Diego County.
Not Expected Foraging; Not
Expected Nesting. No suitable
riparian habitat present for
foraging or nesting. Historical
locations exist within 1 mile of
the survey area but not within
(USFWS 2022b).
PGCC 9-6-2023
23 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Gymnogyps
californianus
California
condor
FE/SE/— Occurs in rocky,
forested regions
including canyons,
gorges, and
mountains. Nests
mainly in cavities or
caves in cliffs but
occasionally uses
trees (redwoods).
Not Expected Foraging; Not
Expected Nesting. No canyons
or remote gorge/mountain
habitat required to support
foraging and nesting California
condors are available within
survey area. Known historical
locations within 1 mile. No
historical locations within
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole BCC/None/— Found in riparian and open woodlands,
including in urban
parks. Prefers large
trees (sycamores,
cottonwoods, willows,
deciduous oaks,
madrones, and large
mesquites) spaced far
apart or in isolated
clumps.
Low Foraging; Low Nesting.
Habitat required to support
foraging and nesting Bullock’s
orioles is available along
Railroad Way and Arena
Avenue but not Asilomar
Avenue. Known historical
locations within 1 mile. No
historical locations within
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
(nesting)
California black
rail
None/ST; FP/— Found in tidal marsh
areas and wet
meadows with tulles
and reeds. Extirpated
from most of
historical range in
California; mostly
found in San Francisco
Bay Area now.
Not Expected Foraging; Not
Expected Nesting. Habitat
required to support foraging
and nesting California black
rails is not available in the
survey area. No tidal marshes,
marshes, or wet meadows
available with adequate reed
or rush species for
refugia/foraging. Historical
locations exist within 1 mile of
survey area but not within
(Figure 8) (CDFW 2022a).
Picoides
nuttallii
Nuttall’s
woodpecker
BCC/None/— Occurs within wooded
canyons, foothills, and
woods along rivers.
Typically found near
oaks, and where oaks
meet rivers, and pineoak woodlands in
foothills. Also found in
riverside cottonwood
trees, sycamores, and
willows if oaks not
present.
Moderate Foraging; Moderate
Nesting. Pines, cypress, and
oak trees available along
Railroad Way. Some pines and
cypress along Arena Avenue
but not Asilomar Avenue.
Known historical locations
within 1 mile. No historical
locations within survey area
(USFWS 2022b).
PGCC 9-6-2023
24 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Pterodroma
sandwichensis
Short-tailed
albatross
FE/SSC/— Forages over open
ocean. Breeds in
several colonies in
small island groups
south of Japan (most
colonies on slopes of
Torishima Island).
Not Expected Foraging; Not
Expected Nesting. No suitable
habitat present; project site
outside Japan and open ocean.
Known historical locations
within 1 mile. No historical
locations within survey area
(USFWS 2022b).
Phoebastria
(=Diomedea)
albatrus
Hawaiian petrel FE/None/— Nests in burrows
primarily in remote
montane locations,
along large rock
outcrops, under
cinder cones, under
old lichen-covered
lava, or in soil beneath
dense vegetation on
Hawaiian Islands.
Forages over open
ocean.
Not Expected Foraging; Not
Expected Nesting. No suitable
habitat present; project site
outside Hawaiʻi and open
ocean. Known historical
locations within 1 mile. No
historical locations within
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
Selasphorus
sasin
Allen’s
hummingbird
BCC/None/— Nests in trees or
shrubs, preferably
blackberry, bracken
fern, eucalyptus,
cypress, and Douglas
fir trees. Forages for
ants and other tiny
insects when nectar is
not available.
High Foraging; High Nesting.
Abundant nectar sources and
pines and cypress trees within
survey area. Known historical
locations within 1 mile. No
historical locations within
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
Sternula
antillarum
browni (nesting
colony)
California least
tern
FE/SE/— Forages over open
oceans, bays, and
lagoons. Nests are
shallow scrapes or
depressions on flat,
open sandy areas, or
areas with saline
substrates where
driftwood and
vegetation are absent
or sparse.
Not Expected Foraging; Not
Expected Nesting. No suitable
habitat present. Dune scrub
habitat is too dense with
vegetation and highly
disturbed. Known historical
locations within 1 mile. No
historical locations within
survey area (USFWS 2022b).
Vireo bellii
pusillus
(nesting)
Least Bell’s
vireo
FE/SE/— Occurs in riparian
scrub and riparian
forest and is a summer
resident in California
below 2,000 feet.
Not Expected Foraging; Not
Expected Nesting. No suitable
riparian habitat present.
Known historical locations
within 1 mile. No historical
locations within survey area
(USFWS 2022b).
PGCC 9-6-2023
25 Table 2. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Federal/State/CRPR Habitat Potential to Occur
Mammals
Enhydra lutris
nereis
Southern sea
otter
FT/FP/— Forages in marine
coastal areas along
the central California
coastline, including
rocky and sandy areas
along the exposed
outer coast and
protected areas (bays
and estuaries).
Not Expected Foraging. No
suitable habitat marine habitat
present. Known historical
locations within 1 mile in open
ocean. No historical locations
within survey area (USFWS
2022b).
Notes: amsl = above mean sea level; None = No status indicated for species CNPS Rare Plant Ranking: 1B = Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; 4 = A watch list of species of limited distribution; 0.1 = Species is seriously threatened in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat);
0.2 = Species is moderately threatened in California (20–80 percent occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat).
Federal Status: BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern; FT = federally listed as threatened; FC = federal candidate; FE = federally listed as endangered; RFC = review federal candidacy
State Status: CR = State of California rare; SE = state listed as endangered; ST= state listed as threatened; FP = state listed as fully protected; RSC = review state candidacy; SSC = California species of special concern Sensitive Plant Species
Two sensitive plant species, Monterey cypress and Monterey pine, were observed during the 2022 biological resources survey (Figure 7). No other sensitive plant species were observed; however, a focused rare plant survey was not conducted. Three other sensitive plant species have high potential to occur in the survey area: sandmat manzanita (Arctostaphylos pumila), Monterey spineflower (Corizanthe pungens var. pungens), and Menzies’ wallflower (Erysimum menziesii). These five species are discussed in further detail in the following subsections.
Sensitive Plant Species Observed
Monterey Cypress
Monterey cypress is a CNPS CRPR ranked 1B.2 species that is endemic to the Central Coast of California. It is a fast-growing evergreen conifer with an asymmetric crown that is often open and flat topped to widely conic. It bears brown spheric to elliptic cones. This species was once widely distributed along the Central Coast, and now, only two small forest stands are left near Monterey and Carmel where individuals are around 2,000 years old.
Monterey cypress are widely planted as an ornamental in California, yet some remnant natural individual trees remain in areas that have long been developed. The two stands that remain are protected, but individuals outside those stands are threatened by continued urban and residential development.
This species was observed along Arena Avenue and Asilomar Avenue (Figure 7). Individuals may be in the stands of Monterey cypress along Railroad Way.
Monterey Pine
Monterey pine is a CNPS CRPR ranked 1B.1 species. It is a coniferous evergreen tree that grows between 49 and 98 feet in height with upward pointing branches and a rounded top. It is native to Santa Cruz, Monterey (Peninsula), and San Luis Obispo Counties in California and the Cedros and Guadalupe Islands in Mexico. It is typically found in closed-cone coniferous forests where it shares dominance with Monterey cypress. A remnant forest stand in the City north of the project site is habitat used by monarch butterflies for overwintering. This species is threatened by continued urban and residential development, as well as encroachment.
PGCC 9-6-2023
26 Several Monterey pines are throughout the survey area at Asilomar Way (Figure 7). There is high potential for this species to be found at Arena Avenue in the eastern portion of the survey area and along Railroad Way in the disturbed areas between residences.
Sensitive Plant Species Not Observed but with High Potential to Occur Sandmat Manzanita
Sandmat manzanita is a CNPS CRPR ranked 1B.2 plant. This species is a perennial evergreen shrub endemic to the California coast in and near Monterey. It is a small, low-lying manzanita that forms flat bushes and patchy, creeping mats in sandy soils. The bark is reddish but typically does not shred. Flowers appear in clusters (sparse) and are white to pale pink. It does not grow in areas with direct salt spray, and it is threatened by residential, commercial, and other urban development.
CNDDB research returned three results for sandmat manzanita within 1 mile of the survey area, including one location directly in the survey area (Figure 8). A sandmat manzanita individual was mapped in 1980 (without GPS) in an unspecified location approximately 0.10 mile from Sunset Drive along Arena Avenue, between Asilomar Avenue and Sunset Drive (Figure 8). This individual is considered extant but has not been verified or re-surveyed.
This individual was not observed during the 2022 biological resources survey; however, a focused rare plant survey was not conducted. This species has high potential to be found in the survey area.
Monterey Spineflower
Monterey spineflower is a federal listed threatened and CNPS CRPR ranked 1B.2 species. This species of spineflower is endemic to California in Monterey, typically found growing in sandy dune habitats, but also found in chaparral and woodland areas that contain loose, sandy soils. It is a prostrate plant that ascends slightly and has an involucre with white to pink margins. This species is threatened by trampling, urbanization, recreational activities, non-native invasive species, and residential development.
The survey area falls in Monterey spineflower critical habitat. One Monterey spineflower record is known for 1 mile surrounding the survey area (Figure 8). However, the only source for this individual is a 1906 reference for somewhere within 0.20 mile of the CNDDB mapped location. Therefore, this point is unspecified, and the plant may be extirpated by residential development since the date of observation. This species remains in high potential due to the proximity of the previously known location, presence of critical habitat in the survey area, and availability of suitable habitat (sandy dune habitat) on the project site. However, the likelihood of encountering this species is considered low to moderate because the dunes are disturbed and the species has not been recorded in the survey area since 1906.
Menzies’ Wallflower
Menzies’ wallflower is a federally listed threatened, state listed endangered, and CNPS CRPR ranked 1B.1 plant species. Historically, this species was found in coastal dunes and cliffs in Northern California and southern Oregon.
Currently, Menzies’ wallflower is known to occur in sandy beach dune habitats in Humboldt, Mendocino, and Monterey Counties. The species can be described as a “mustard-like” biennial or perennial that is short in stature, typically not more than 15 centimeters in height. It has wide yellow petals that are “clawed,” and when it is in fruit, the fruit is cylindric when green and flat parallel to septum when dry. This species is removed from its former range by development and military activities and continues to be threatened by recreational activities, urban and residential development, trampling, and non-native invasives species.
CNDDB research shows a polygon of mapped Menzies’ wallflower individuals that extends into the survey area along the western edge of the project site at Arena Avenue (Figure 8). The polygon crosses the road and ends at Asilomar State Beach. Information for this occurrence states that the population was mapped on Asilomar State Beach near Spanish Bay. It is unknown if the polygon extends into the project site because individuals were specifically mapped on the project site, or it is a general polygon, and the individuals are confined to the state beach. This species was not observed during the 2022 biological resources survey; however, a focused rare plant survey was not conducted. In addition, this species blooms from April through June, with occasional late-blooming PGCC 9-6-2023
27 individuals still flowering in July and August. In addition to this polygon, approximately seven other records of individuals and/or polygons were found within 1 mile of the survey area. Therefore, this species has high potential to be found in the survey area.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
No sensitive wildlife species were observed in the survey area. Two sensitive wildlife species, monarch butterfly overwintering population (Danaus plexippus population 1) and Allen’s hummingbird, have high potential to occur in the survey area. These two species are discussed in further detail in the following subsections.
Sensitive Wildlife Species Not Observed but with High Potential to Occur Monarch Butterfly
On December 15, 2020, the USFWS found that adding the monarch butterfly to the list of threatened and endangered species is warranted but precluded by higher-priority species reviews and work. Monarch butterfly is one of the most recognizable butterfly species, with orange wings laced with black lines and bordered with white dots. Its wingspan is 3.7 to 4.1 inches. This species occurs in patches of milkweed (Asclepias sp.), the monarch caterpillar host plant. Although larvae only eat milkweed, adult monarchs feed on a variety of nectar-bearing flowers. Monarch butterflies are found across North America wherever suitable feeding, breeding, and overwintering habitat exists. Monarch butterflies overwinter in groves of eucalyptus, cypress, and pine trees along the California coast and high-elevation forests in Mexico (Xerces Society 2017). Threats to this species include habitat loss, climate change, and agriculture.
Typically arriving in October, monarch butterflies cluster on pine, cypress, and eucalyptus trees in the City by the hundreds of thousands in the Pacific Grove Monarch Sanctuary. Some are expected to migrate through and potentially rest on the project site due to its placement within the path of migration and the proximity to the sanctuary. Historical occurrences are documented within 1 mile of the survey area (Figure 8). Cypress and pine trees are available along Arena Avenue and Railroad Way in the survey area. No milkweed patches suitable as host plants for caterpillars to occupy were observed in the survey area; however, there are abundant nectar sources for monarchs to feed.
Allen’s Hummingbird
Allen’s hummingbird is a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Allen’s hummingbird is coppery orange and green hummingbird approximately 3 to 3.5 inches in size, with a straight bill approximately the size of its head. This species can be found wherever nectar sources for feeding are available in or surrounding breeding sites. Nests are typically placed in tall shrubs or trees such as eucalyptus, pine, oak, and cypress trees. They will also nest in riparian areas in cottonwoods, willows, and mulefat.
Allen’s hummingbird nests were not observed in the survey area; however, the survey was conducted outside breeding season, and a focused nest survey was not conducted. This species has high potential to be found nesting in the trees and larger shrubs in the survey area because plentiful sources of nectar from native plants and ornamental plantings are in residential gardens.
Nesting Birds
Nesting birds are protected by the MBTA and similar provisions of the CFGC. No bird nests were observed in the survey area. However, the survey was conducted at the end of the breeding season when active bird nests are least likely to be observed. The multitude of buildings and trees and shrubs, both native and non-native, provide plentiful nesting habitat for passerines and raptors. Therefore, there is high potential for birds to be nesting in the survey area.
Roosting Bats
While no bats were observed using the survey area for roosting or foraging during the survey, no nighttime focused acoustic surveys were conducted. Database research results yielded no known historical locations of sensitive bat species in the survey area. However, the availability of suitable roosting habitat (i.e., buildings, rock PGCC 9-6-2023
28 crevices, coniferous trees) and suitable foraging habitat (i.e., ornamental plantings) indicates that bats are likely to be found in the survey area. Common species including Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis), California myotis (Myotis californicus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), which are habitat generalists or can be found roosting in buildings, crevices, and coniferous forests/trees, are likely to be found in the survey area.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for Monterey spineflower occurs in the survey area (Figure 8). USFWS designated critical habitat for Monterey spineflower in 2006 and separated areas into nine specific units. Unit 4, the Asilomar Unit, is approximately 48 acres and consists of coastal dunes and bluffs near the communities of Pacific Grove and Pebble Beach on the Monterey Peninsula in northern Monterey County, including a portion of Asilomar State Beach, extending just beyond Lighthouse Avenue to the north and terminating at the boundary of the Asilomar Hotel & Conference Grounds. The unit’s eastern boundary extends from Highway 68 North along Asilomar Avenue, then turns along Arena Avenue, and heads west until it connects with Sunset Drive (USFWS 2006). The entire survey area is included in Unit 4.
Critical habitat for Yadon’s piperia (Platanthera yadonii) touches into the 1-mile data research buffer in the southeast. No Yadon’s piperia critical habitat falls in the survey area. No other critical habitat occurs within 1 mile of the survey area.
Wildlife Corridors and Linkages
Wildlife corridors provide routes for local movement and regional linkages and corridors and often following linear topographic, vegetation, or water features. These corridors can be continuous habitats features, or “stepping stone” areas, providing critical rest and foraging areas for, for example, birds traveling along migratory routes.
Local routes of movement provide constant connections to resources that include sources of water, home/cover sites, and foraging areas. Regional linkages and movement corridors provide larger patches of open space to allow relatively free movement of wildlife species along multiple paths between important resources. These areas allow for not only long-term genetic flow between subpopulations but also critical pathways of seasonal/migratory movements. Larger predatory mammals often use regional corridors for hunting and reproduction needs.
Potential wildlife corridors can include streams, riparian areas, and culverts under roadways. Habitat characteristics considered included topography, habitat quality, and adjacent land uses.
The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project has not identified any wildlife movement corridors occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site (CDFW 2022d). The nearest designated wildlife movement corridor is
4.6 miles to the southeast.
The survey area is in a relatively densely populated portion of Pacific Grove that is bordered by the Pacific Ocean.
While mule deer, a large ungulate/mammal, are abundant in the survey area, the survey area is unlikely to be used as a major movement corridor for other large mammals due to the disturbance by humans and lack of connectivity to larger open space. Mesocarnivores, including foxes and coyotes, have some potential to be found in the survey area but are not likely to use the area as major routes of movement or for nursey sites. The survey area falls within the Pacific Flyway and, therefore, is used by birds during migration.
Project Impacts
Potential direct and indirect impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities, potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources, and wildlife corridors and habitat linkages are discussed in the following subsections.
PGCC 9-6-2023
29 Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species
Direct Impacts
As discussed in the Project Description section, the project has been designed to avoid impacts on sensitive resources to the maximum extent feasible, including the Monterey cypress and Monterey pine trees and the disturbed dune scrub that may have the potential to support sensitive plant and wildlife species. Avoidance of impacts on Monterey cypress would further ensure that impacts would not occur on monarch butterflies potentially using these trees during migration. The proposed area of potential effect occurs in the developed land and disturbed habitat of the roadways and residential properties that have a low likelihood to support sensitive plant and wildlife species due to continued mechanical (and potentially chemical) disturbance (Figure 4). As discussed in the Project Description section, PDF-1, Focused Rare Plant Clearance Survey and Avoidance, and PDF-2, Sensitive Habitats Flagging and Fencing, would require a pre-construction focused rare plant clearance survey and the installation of avoidance flagging and fencing around the sensitive dune habitat and Monterey cypress and Monterey pine trees prior to construction to avoid potential encroachment. Further, construction equipment would remain within developed portions (i.e., paved roads and maintained access roads), and activities set to occur outside these locations would be minor, mostly confined to disturbed areas, and temporary in nature.
Therefore, implementation of the project is unlikely to result in impacts on habitat that could support sensitive plant and wildlife species. Direct impacts on sensitive plant species would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Indirect Impacts
Temporary construction-related indirect impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species generally include trampling, dust generation, pollutant discharges, soil erosion and runoff, noise, vibration, lighting, increased human activity, introduction of non-native and invasive plant species, and accumulation of trash and garbage, which can attract introduced terrestrial, native terrestrial, and avian predators (i.e., corvids, canids, raccoons, and striped skunks). These temporary construction-related impacts in the form of habitat disturbance, dust generation, pollutant discharges, soil erosion and runoff, and increased predation could have a significant impact on the sensitive plant and wildlife species that could occur in the survey area. Implementation of PDF-1 and PDF-2 would require a pre-construction focused rare plant clearance survey and the installation of avoidance flagging and fencing around the sensitive dune habitat prior to construction to avoid potential habitat disturbance.
Standard best management practices (BMPs), including those required by PDF-3, Water Quality Protection Measures, for dust suppression measures, erosion- and sediment-control measures (sand and gravel bags, plasticfree [no monofilament] fiber rolls, and silt fencing), use of weed-free erosion-control products, and preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), would be required of the construction contractor. The SWPPP would be prepared pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ). The SWPPP would address the potential sources and locations of stormwater contamination characteristics, impacts of specific contaminants, and temporary and permanent erosion-control practices and would include water sampling data, construction practices that minimize stormwater contamination, coordination of BMPs with planned construction activities, and compliance with County, state, and federal regulations. Additional BMPs that would be required during construction include noise suppression measures and trash containment methods. With implementation of PDF-1 through PDF-3 and standard construction BMPs, temporary indirect impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species observed and with high potential to occur in the survey area would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats
As previously discussed, no trees are proposed for removal, and no tree trimming is expected to occur during project construction; therefore, implementation of the project would not remove potential nesting habitat for protected raptors and birds. However, if construction is conducted during the general bird breeding season (January 15 through August 31), PDF-4, Nesting Bird Survey, would require a pre-construction nesting bird survey to avoid direct and indirect impacts on bird species protected under the MBTA and CDFW. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts on nesting birds, and no mitigation is required.
PGCC 9-6-2023
30 Similarly, for roosting bats, no removal of potential roosting habitat in the nearby buildings, rock crevices, and coniferous trees or of suitable foraging habitat in the ornamental plantings in and surrounding the survey area would occur during project construction. Further, no nighttime work is proposed that would disturb bats potentially roosting in or around the survey area. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts on roosting bats, and no mitigation is required.
Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Direct Impacts
As discussed under Direct Impacts in the Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species section, the project has been designed to avoid impacts on sensitive resources to the maximum extent feasible, including the sensitive disturbed dune scrub that occurs in the survey area. Construction would be limited to the paved and dirt roadways that directly border the disturbed dune scrub in the Asilomar Avenue and Arena Avenue segments, avoiding direct impacts on the disturbed dune scrub vegetation (Figure 3). Further, no trees or shrubs would be trimmed or removed during implementation of the project, and as required by PDF-2, sensitive dune habitat, Monterey cypress trees, and Monterey pine trees would be flagged and/or fenced for avoidance prior to construction. The disturbed habitat and developed land in the survey area are not considered sensitive vegetation communities and impacts on these land cover types would be considered less than significant. Therefore, the project would avoid impacts on the sensitive vegetation community disturbed dune scrub in the survey area, no direct impacts would result, and no mitigation is required.
Indirect Impacts
Most of the indirect impacts on sensitive plant species described under Indirect Impacts in the Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species section also result in potentially significant indirect impacts on sensitive vegetation communities.
Indirect impacts on the sensitive vegetation community, disturbed dune scrub, in the survey area could result from invasion by exotic species, exposure to construction-related pollutant discharges, and trampling by humans.
As previously discussed, implementation of PDF-2 would require the installation of avoidance flagging and fencing around the sensitive dune habitat prior to construction to avoid potential disturbance. Standard construction BMPs, including those required by PDF-3 for dust suppression measures, erosion- and sediment-control measures (sand and gravel bags, plastic-free [no monofilament] fiber rolls, and silt fencing), use of weed-free erosion-control products, and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, would be required of the construction contractor during project implementation. With implementation of PDF-2, PDF-3, and standard construction BMPs, indirect impacts on the sensitive vegetation community in the survey area would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
Direct Impacts
As discussed under Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species direct impacts, the project has been designed to avoid impacts on sensitive resources to the maximum extent feasible, including potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources that occur in the survey area. Construction activities in the Arena Avenue segment adjacent to the aquatic resources would be limited to the paved roadway and would not disturb the banks or bottom of the drainages. Therefore, the project would avoid impacts on the potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources in the survey area, no direct impacts would result, and no mitigation is required.
Indirect Impacts
Most of the indirect impacts on sensitive plant species and sensitive vegetation communities described for sensitive vegetation communities also result in potentially significant indirect impacts on potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources. Indirect impacts on potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources could result from generation of fugitive dust, changes in hydrology resulting from construction (including sedimentation and erosion), and exposure to construction-related pollutant discharges. As previously discussed under the impacts sections in the Sensitive Plant and Wildlife and Sensitive Vegetation Communities sections, standard construction BMPs, PGCC 9-6-2023
31 including those required by PDF-3 for dust suppression measures, erosion- and sediment-control measures (sand and gravel bags, plastic-free [no monofilament] fiber rolls, and silt fencing), use of weed-free erosion-control products, and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, would be required of the construction contractor during project implementation. With implementation of PDF-3 and standard construction BMPs, indirect impacts on the potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources in the survey area would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
The project would not permanently impact the majority of the survey area, including the existing trees and disturbed dune scrub, and would not impede wildlife movement through the survey area. General wildlife movement routes that may occur through the survey area would remain after implementation of the project. The project would not impact the potential aquatic resources or any other downstream aquatic areas that would interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish species. Implementation of the project would not substantially interfere with the movement or established migratory corridors of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, including the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, impacts on wildlife movement corridors would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Local Policies and Ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans As previously discussed, the project would not result in significant impacts on sensitive biological resources, including sensitive plant and wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities, potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources, or wildlife movement corridors. Through implementation of PDF-1 through PDF-4, avoidance of impacts on biological resources, and compliance with the permit requirements of the Pacific Grove LCP, the project would comply with the local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources identified in the Natural Resources Element of the Pacific Grove General Plan and the Pacific Grove LCP (City of Pacific Grove 1994, 2022).
Therefore, no impacts on local policies or ordinances would occur from implementation of the project, and no protection measures are required.
The survey area is not in an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan and is not subject to the Natural Community Conservation Planning program. Therefore, no impacts on local conservation plans would occur from implementation of the project, and no protection measures are required.
Conclusions
With implementation of PDF-1 through PDF-4 and avoidance of impacts on biological resources, the project would not result in significant impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species, nesting birds, roosting bats, sensitive vegetation communities, potentially aquatic resources, and wildlife corridors and habitat linkages. The project would comply with the permit requirements of the Pacific Grove LCP and the local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources identified in the Natural Resources Element of the Pacific Grove General Plan and the Pacific Grove LCP. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts on biological resources.
PGCC 9-6-2023
32 Preparers
Harris & Associates
Emily Mastrelli, Principal Biologist
Katie Laybourn, Biologist/Aquatic Resources Specialist
If you have any questions regarding this letter report, please contact me at (619) 510-5372 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Emily Mastrelli
Principal Biologist
Attachments
1, Figures
2, Observed Wildlife and Plant Species
References
Calflora. 2022. “Information on Wild California Plants.” Accessed November 2022. http://www.calflora.org/.
CCH (Consortium of California Herbarium). 2022. “Consortium of California Herbarium.” Updated November 8.
Accessed November 2022. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2022a. Database Query. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Commercial version dated March 1. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch.
CDFW. 2022b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Accessed November 2022. https:// apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/.
CDFW. 2022c. California Natural Community List. July 5. Accessed November 2022. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline.
CDFW. 2022d. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. Accessed November 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Connectivity/CEHC.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Online edition, v9-01 1.5. Accessed November 2022. http:www.rareplants.cnps.org/.
City of Pacific Grove. 1994. Pacific Grove General Plan. Accessed November 2022. https://www.cityofpacificgrove .org/our_city/departments/community_development/programs___projects/general_plan.php#outer269.
City of Pacific Grove. 2020. Local Coastal Program, including Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances. Accessed November 2022. https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/our_city/departments/community_development/programs___projects/local_coastal_program.php#outer-270.
Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game. October.
Jepson eFlora. 2022. The Jepson Herbarium. Accessed November 2022. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/filter_keys.html.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Final. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y‑87‑1. Online edition. Prepared by Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army PGCC 9-6-2023
33 Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Wetlands Research Program. January. Accessed November 2022. https://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Portals/38/docs/USACE%2087%20Wetland%20Delineation%20 Manual.pdf.
USACE. 2022. Traditional Navigable Waters in San Francisco District. Accessed November 2022. https://www. spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdiction/.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2019. Web Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed November 2022. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Monterey Spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens). Federal Register 50 CFR
17. 71 FR 75189. 27 pp. 75189–75215. December 14.
USFWS. 2022a. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. Accessed November 2022. https://www.fws. gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html.
USFWS. 2022b. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Accessed November 2022. https://ecos.fws. gov/ipac/.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2022. National Hydrologic Dataset. Accessed November 2022. https://www.arcgis.com/ home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https://hydro.nationalmap.gov/arcgis/rest/services/nhd/MapServer& source=sd.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2022. “Climate of California.” Accessed November 2022. https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/narrative_ca.php.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Attachment 1. Figures
PGCC 9-6-2023
This page intentionally left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Date: 11/16/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Pacific Grove\Map Docs\Bio\Figure1_Regional.mxd Carmel Valley
Village
Monterey
Seaside
Marina
Prunedale Elkhorn
Salinas
Hollister
Watsonville
Soquel Aptos Corralitos
Felton Day
Valley
Scotts
Valley
Ben
Lomond
Boulder
Creek Morgan
Hill
Lexington
Hills
Gilroy
Santa Cruz
County
Santa Clara County
laus County
Monterey County
San Benito County
San Benito County
Merced County
Merced County
Monterey
County
San Benito County
Santa Clara County
anta Clara County
Santa Cruz County
nta Cruz
County
P a c i f i c O c e a n
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ35
156 ÄÆ
152 ÄÆ
ÄÆ1
218 ÄÆ
ÄÆ1
152 ÄÆ
183 ÄÆ
146 ÄÆ
ÄÆ25
ÄÆ17
129 ÄÆ
ÄÆ68
ÄÆ9
156 ÄÆ
ÄÆ25
ÄÆ1
Incorporated Areas
Project Site !(^
Source: ESRI 2021.
± 0 5 10
Miles Regional Location
Figure 1
City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement
Project for Wastewater Collection System Phase 9
PGCC 9-6-2023
Short St
Melton Pl
Pico Pl
Shell Ave
Railroad Way
Cll de Los Amigos
Evergreen Rd
Melrose St
Arena Ave
del Monte Blvd Ridge Rd
17 Mile Dr
Seventeen Mile Dr Monarch Ln
Pico Ave
Lighthouse Ave
Jewell Ave
Crocker Ave
Asilomar Blvd
Sunset Dr
Railroad Way
Arena Avenue
Asilomar
Avenue
Survey Area
Date: 11/16/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Pacific Grove\Map Docs\Bio\Figure2_SurveyArea.mxd Source: Maxar Imagery 2021.
±
0 250 500
Feet Survey Area
Source: Maxar Imagery 2021.
Figure 2
City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement
Project for Wastewater Collection System Phase 9
PGCC 9-6-2023
Railroad Way
Arena Avenue
Asilomar
Avenue
Survey Area
Date: 11/16/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Pacific Grove\Map Docs\Bio\Figure3_USGS.mxd Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Monterey Quadrangle 1948.
±
0 500 1,000
Feet USGS Topographic Map
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Monterey Quadrangle 1948.
Figure 3
City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement
Project for Wastewater Collection System Phase 9
PGCC 9-6-2023
Oak Pl
Short St
Pine Garden Ln
Melton Pl
Railroad Way
Cll de Los Amigos
Arena Ave
Pico Ave
Lighthouse Ave
Jewell Ave
Crocker Ave
Sunset Dr
Asilomar Blvd
Railroad Way
Arena Avenue
Asilomar
Avenue
Survey Area
Soils
Baywood Sand
Dune Land
Date: 11/16/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Pacific Grove\Map Docs\Bio\Figure4_Soils.mxd Source: USDA 1972; Maxar Imagery 2021.
± 0 150 300
Feet
Soils
Source: USDA 1972; Maxar Imagery 2021.
Figure 4
City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement
Project for Wastewater Collection System Phase 9
PGCC 9-6-2023
Oak Pl
Short St
Pine Garden Ln
Melton Pl
Railroad Way
Cll de Los Amigos
Arena Ave
Pico Ave
Lighthouse Ave
Jewell Ave
Crocker Ave
Sunset Dr
Asilomar Blvd
Railroad Way
Arena Avenue
Asilomar
Avenue
Survey Area
Vegetation Communities
and Land Cover Types
Developed Land
Disturbed Dune Scrub
Disturbed Habitat
Date: 11/16/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Pacific Grove\Map Docs\Bio\Figure5_Vegetation.mxd Source: Maxar Imagery 2021.
± 0 150 300
Feet Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Source: Maxar Imagery 2021.
Figure 5
City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement
Project for Wastewater Collection System Phase 9
PGCC 9-6-2023
%,
%,
Cll de Los Amigos
Sunset Dr
Arena Ave
Arena Avenue
Survey Area
%, Potential Waters of the U.S./State
Date: 11/16/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Pacific Grove\Map Docs\IS_MND\Figure6_AquaticResources.mxd Source: Maxar Imagery 2021.
±
0 50 100
Feet Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
Source: Maxar Imagery 2021.
Figure 6
City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement
Project for Wastewater Collection System Phase 9
PGCC 9-6-2023
Oak Pl
Short St
Pine Garden Ln
Melton Pl
Railroad Way
Cll de Los Amigos
Arena Ave
Pico Ave
Lighthouse Ave
Jewell Ave
Crocker Ave
Sunset Dr
Asilomar Blvd
Railroad Way
Arena Avenue
Asilomar
Avenue
Survey Area
Sensitive Plant Species
Monterey Cypress
Monterey Pine
Date: 11/16/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Pacific Grove\Map Docs\Bio\Figure7_SensitivePlantSpecies.mxd Source: Maxar Imagery 2021.
± 0 150 300
Feet Sensitive Species Observed
Source: Maxar Imagery 2021.
Figure 7
City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement
Project for Wastewater Collection System Phase 9
PGCC 9-6-2023
^_d
^
!(
^_
d
!(
d
d
d
d
d
!(
!(
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
Railroad Way
Arena Avenue
Asilomar
Avenue
Survey Area
1-Mile Buffer
Monterey Spineflower Critical Habitat
Yadon's Piperia Critical Habitat
Bird Species
^ California Black Rail
^_ Western Snowy Plover
^_ Yellow Rail
Invertebrate Species
!( Monarch Butterfly (Overwintering
Population)
!( Western Bumble Bee
Reptile Species
d Black Legless Lizard
Plant Species
#* Carmel Valley Bush-Mallow
#* Hooker's Manzanita
#* Hutchinson's Larkspur
#* Jolon Clarkia
#* Kellogg's Horkelia
#* Menzies' Wallflower
#* Monterey Gilia
#* Monterey Pine
#* Monterey Spineflower
#* Pacific Grove Clover
#* Tidestrom's Lupine
#* Yadon's Rein Orchid
#* Beach Layia
#* Maple-Leaved Checkerbloom
#* Marsh Microseris
#* Northern Curly-Leaved Monardella
#* Pine Rose
#* Pink Johnny-Nip
#* Saline Clover
#* Sandmat Manzanita
Date: 11/16/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Pacific Grove\Map Docs\Bio\Figure8_Species_PTO.mxd Source: USFWS 2007, 2008; CNDDB 2022; Maxar Imagery 2021. ± 0 1,000 2,000
Feet Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area Source: USFWS 2007, 2008; CNDDB 2022; Maxar Imagery 2021.
Figure 8
City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement Project for
Wastewater Collection System Phase 9
PGCC 9-6-2023
Attachment 2. Observed Wildlife and Plant Species
PGCC 9-6-2023
This page intentionally left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Table X. Wildlife Species Detected
Scientific Name Common Name Special Status
VERTEBRATES
Amphibians
Pseudacris sierra
Birds
Buteo lineatus
Aphelocoma californica
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Mammals
Odocoileus hemionus
Legend
Special Status:
Federal:
FE = Endangered
FT = Threatened
State:
SE = Endangered
ST =Threatened
CSC = California Species of Special Concern
CFP = California Fully Protected Species
*= Non-native or invasive species
Sierran Treefrog
Red-shouldered Hawk
California Scrub-Jay
American Crow
California Mule Deer
PGCC 9-6-2023
Table for Report 3
Scientific Name Common Name Special Status
GYMNOSPERMS
Cupressaceae - Cypress family
Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress CRPR 1B.2
Pinaceae - Pine family
Pinus radiata Monterey pine CRPR 1B.1
EUDICOTS
Aizoaceae - Fig-marigold family
* Carpobrotus chilensis Chilean sea fig
Asteraceae - Sunflower family
Artemisia pycnocephala Dense fruit sagebrush
Baccharis pilularis ssp. pilularis Coyote brush
Corethrogyne filaginifolia Common sand aster
Heterotheca sp. False goldenaster
* Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat's-ear
Brassicaceae - Mustard family
Descurainia longipedicellata Western tansymustard
Fabaceae - Legume family
* Acacia longifolia Sydney golden wattle
Fagaceae - Oak family
Quercus sp. Oak
Plantaginaceae - Plantain family
* Plantago coronopus Buckhorn plantain
Polygonaceae - Buckwheat famil
Eriogonum parvifolium Seacliff buckwheat
MONOCOTS
Cyperaceae - Sedge family
Carex pansa Sand dune sedge
Poaceae - Grass family
* Cortaderia selloana Pampas grass
* Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass
Distichlis spicata Salt grass
PGCC 9-6-2023
Scientific Name Common Name Special Status
Legend
Special Status:
Federal:
FE = Endangered
FT = Threatened
State:
SE = Endangered
ST =Threatened
*= Non-native or invasive species
CRPR – California Rare Plant Rank
1A. Presumed extinct in California and elsewhere
1B. Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere
2A. Presumed extinct in California, more common elsewhere 2B. Rare or Endangered in California, more common elsewhere
3. Plants for which we need more information - Review list
4. Plants of limited distribution - Watch list
Threat Ranks
.1 - Seriously endangered in California
.2 – Fairly endangered in California
.3 – Not very endangered in California
PGCC 9-6-2023
This page intentionalfy left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
This page intentionalfy left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Appendix C – Cultural Resources Report
(cover page only)
PGCC 9-6-2023
This page intentionalfy left blank.
PGCC 9-6-2023
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY LETTER REPORT –
NEGATIVE FINDINGS
City of Pacific Grove Capital Improvement Project for
Wastewater Collection System Phase 9
Lead Agency:
City of Pacific Grove
2100 Sunset Drive
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Preparer:
Donna Beddow, RPA
Harris & Associates
600 B Street, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 236-1778
Project Proponent:
Daniel Gho
Director of Public Works/Deputy City Manager
City of Pacific Grove
2100 Sunset Drive
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
December 2022
PGCC 9-6-2023
Agenda No. 11 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Salary Classification Schedule to Include Salary for City Manager Pro Tempore
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Request City Attorney to read title of ordinance;
2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
Introduce and hold for first reading an Ordinance Amending Salary Classification Schedule to include Salary for City Manager Pro Tempore;
3. Direct that publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney;
4. 5. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
On August 2, 2023, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule to include a salary for City Manager Pro Tempore at $103.85 an hour effective retroactive to July 28, 2023.
Attached to this Agenda Report is a proposed Ordinance Amending Salary Classification Schedule to include Salary for City Manager Pro Tempore.
The recommended action is for the City Council to request the City Attorney to read the title of the Ordinance and to waive further reading and introduce for first reading an Ordinance Amending Salary Classification Schedule to include Salary for City Manager Pro Tempore.
OPTIONS
Not adopt an ordinance amending salary classification schedule to include salary for City Manager Pro Tempore.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There will be no net cost to the City as a result of adopting this Ordinance because the City Manager PGCC 9-6-2023
There will be no net cost to the City as a result of adopting this Ordinance because the City Manager Pro Tempore will serve as the City Manager and the City will be paying the City Manager Pro Tempore the same salary as would have been paid to the City Manager.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Ordinance Amending Salary Classification Schedule to Include Salary for City Manager Pro Tempore PGCC 9-6-2023
1 ORDINANCE NO. 23-XXX
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE A SALARY
FOR CITY MANAGER PRO TEMPORE
Findings
1. On August 2, 2023, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule to include a salary for City Manager Pro Tempore at 103.85 per hour effective retroactive to July 28, 2023.
2. Amendments to the salary classification plan must be adopted by the City Council pursuant to Charter Article 25 and Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section
4.20.280; and
3. In the enactment of this ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq. Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment pursuant Section 15378.
Ordinance
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
SECTION 1. The foregoing findings of the City Council are incorporated into this Ordinance as if set forth in full.
SECTION 2. The position classification plan approved and adopted by the City Council pursuant to Charter Article 15 and PGMC § 4.20.280 is hereby amended to include a salary for City Manager Pro Tempore at 103.85 per hour effective retroactive to July 28, 2023.
SECTION 3. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective upon the second reading of the ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this ___ day of _____, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
PGCC 9-6-2023
2 ATTEST:
DATED:__________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 9-6-2023
Agenda No. 12 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: George Washington Park Forest Management Plan - 2022 FMP & Approach Forward
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive the 2022 George Washington Park Forest Management Plan (FMP) and provide direction.
Direct staff to proceed with developing a multi-seasonal biological assessment for all zones of the park (1-4)
2. Authorize maintenance activities consistent with the approved 1999 GWP Master Plan until a new plan is developed and approved.
3. 4. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
This report intends to provide an overview of the 2022 George Washington Park (GWP) Forest Management (FMP) Plan effort and discuss the additional efforts recently funded through the FY23/24 Budget that pertain to GWP management.
This report aims to provide the Council an opportunity to:
(1) Review the 2022 GWP FMP (Attachment 1)
(2) Provide direction on a path forward for park management. This approach, discussed in greater detail below, will harness the FY23/24 Budget to produce a new multi-seasonal biological assessment for all zones of the park (zones 1-4), which will serve as a basis for updating the 1999 GWP Master Plan and melding the various forest management plan documents to collectively address the park, in its entirety, and provide a clear set of directions for management. 2022 GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (FMP) Background
As part of the FY21/22 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) $46,000 was allocated for the development of a management plan to address the ~17-acres of forested areas of George Washington Park (GWP), Zones 2, 3 & 4. The intent of the plan was to provide the City with strategies to ensure the forest PGCC 9-6-2023
Zones 2, 3 & 4. The intent of the plan was to provide the City with strategies to ensure the forest flourishes but remains safe for the users and the surrounding neighborhood.
This CIP project originated due to continued conflicting opinions from community stakeholders on management strategies for the park; these conflicting opinions have thwarted the City's ability to move forward with maintenance activities and have not provided the City with adequate direction to balance long term health and fire suppression of the natural areas. As a result of these challenges, at the September 18, 2019, meeting, City Council recommended the City work with a forest management consultant to provide short and long-term recommendations for park management of the forested areas.
Development of a formal plan allows for a set of recommendations to be developed by experts to ensure proper management of the forest, while also providing a public avenue, through meetings like this, to obtain review and comment by community stakeholders.
Zone 1 of the park, which is approximately 4.3 acres, is excluded from the GWP FMP. Zone 1 encompasses the recreation area of the park which contains play structures, picnic tables, barbecue grills, restrooms, and a baseball field. This action is consistent with Council direction, to allow the BNRC and Recreation Board to develop subcommittees to provide direction on their distinct park elements. The subcommittees communicated and determined Zone 1 should be the jurisdiction of the Recreation Board, while the BNRC would concentrate on the parts of the park reserved for natural area resources, Zones 2, 3 and 4.
Development of the Forest Management Plan
Following execution of a contract with Dudek, authorized at the August 4, 2021 council meeting, development of a management plan for the forested areas of GWP began. The management plan development included:
· Field visits
· Review of relevant documents
· Review of maintenance activities performed in the park · Review of volunteer planting efforts
· A tree inventory
· A vegetation inventory
A formal data analysis was performed to obtain and map forest characteristics, including average tree height, species composition, regeneration information, forest surface composition, and fire behavior models. This information serves as the basis for the FMP.
Current Forest Conditions
Ultimately, the assessment revealed vital information on existing tree health, forest composition, tree regeneration and forest threats. A high-level overview of current forest conditions is provided below. A full summary of the current conditions can be found in Section 4 of the FMP. · Tree Health
The trees in the forested areas of the park are generally in fair to good condition · Forest Composition
The overall composition of the forest in the park consists of Monterey pine (32%) and coast live oak (67%). Other tree species present account for only 1% of the trees.
The composition of the forest overstory is in the process of transitioning away from Monterey pine to Oak dominance because of limited pine reproduction The forest overstory is currently predominantly Monterey pine; however, many of the mature pines are at the end of their typical lifespan and are in decline due to environmental stressors – insects, disease and climate. Pines are absent from the mid PGCC 9-6-2023
and under story with no maturing pine trees to replace pine trees that die and fall out of the crown.
In the absence of pine regeneration, the oak tree component in the midstory is becoming the dominant forest canopy tree. Oak trees are abundant and are well represented across all age and size classes and have a health distribution, with more small young trees than older trees. They are also less impacted by insect and disease threats than the pines.
· Tree Regeneration
Oak regeneration is more abundant and appears to be the result of natural seeding but is still limited to patches.
Pine regeneration is less abundant and appears to be the result of deliberate planting by the City and Volunteers or transplanting effort.
Surface vegetation, particularly non-native grasses, outcompete tree seedlings and prohibit regeneration on the forest floor.
· Forest Threats
Several threats exist, but drought is the most prevalent threat to the trees in the park.
Drought conditions increase the risk of a destructive wildfire spreading.
No recorded wildfires have occurred in the park; however, several large wildfires have occurred nearby burning through similar vegetation as presented in the park.
Insects, such as red turpentine beetle, and diseases such as dwarf mistletoe and pitch canker, have been observed in the park and present a threat to existing trees.
Invasive plants and grasses have created a continuous and dense layer of surface vegetation that outcompetes pine and oak seedlings from resources and inhibits the germination of seedlings.
The Forest Management Plan
The FMP describes the management strategies that the City can take in the forested areas of GWP over the 5-year FMP timeframe to:
Reduce wildfire hazards to the homes surrounding the park, and Restore healthy forest conditions to the interior of the park The FMP was developed to meet goals of having a safe and healthy forest in George Washington Park that can be sustainably maintained by the City. The FMP proposes these goals can be achieved through the following objectives:
Reduce the Risk of Wildfire to the surrounding community by reducing or removing flammable vegetation in the park that is within 100 feet of homes.
1. Improve forest health and foster a forest with a healthy distribution of trees ages and sizes by reducing competition from surface vegetation and encouraging tree regeneration.
2. Improve the safety of park users and residents by removing trees that have a high likelihood of failing and causing injury or property damage.
3. The FMP provides the City with a specific set of management activities, a robust toolkit of methods for execution, and blueprint for implementation to manage and foster a healthy forest at GWP.
FMP Recommendations
The management recommendations in the FMP, section 6, are divided into two (2) categories:
1. Fire Hazard Reduction Activities
The plan recommends fire hazard reduction activities within 100ft of the homes surrounding the park, which is comprised of a “U” shaped area around the park, referred to as the Fire Hazard Reduction Zone (FMP Figure 4). The area is an approximately 30-40' wide strip around the permitter of the park. The PGCC 9-6-2023
(FMP Figure 4). The area is an approximately 30-40' wide strip around the permitter of the park. The width of the strip widens to 100’ at the northwest corner where a strip of homes backup to the park boundary. Within the Fire Hazard Reduction Zone, vegetation management actions will be performed that adhere to CAL FIRE’s defensible space requirements.
The intent of these activities is to reduce the risk of a destructive wildfire by reducing the volume of surface vegetation and reducing the risk of fire moving from the surface to the tree canopy by trimming or removing vegetation on the forest surface.
Activities include cutting/mowing tall annual grasses and vegetation to 4” or less in height, removing dead trees and woody shrubs, removing fallen dead trees/tree parts that are 6” or less in diameter, cutting up and scattering fallen leaf trees or parts larger than 6” in diameter, trimming off lower branches on mature trees to create 10’ of space between the ground and lower branches, and removing shrubs, bushes, and thickets within the dripline of a mature tree.
2. Forest Regeneration Activities
The plan recommends forest restoration activities in the interior of the park with the focus on creating conditions favorable to tree regeneration. Activities should occur at plots with ideal site conditions (canopy closure <50%, grass/annual vegetation on the surface, and several mature pine and oak trees nearby). FMP Figure 6 provides recommended restoration and tree planting sites.
This intent of forest regeneration activities is to create conditions conducive to the reproduction and development of new trees.
Activities include felling dead and dying overstory trees, removing concentrations of dead/down logs, mowing grass, and herbaceous cover, removing understory woody surface vegetation, and raking, removing, and reducing the pine needle and leaf litter layer to expose mineral soil, tree plantings, and follow-up treatments to ensure new tree protection.
Section 6 also provides recommendations on trial management activities and an annual work schedule with actions and targeted date ranges for execution.
Treatment Methods
Several treatment methods are available to execute the management activities described above and in section 6 of the FMP. Section 7 of the FMP provides pros and cons of several treatment methods including mechanism, manual, biological, chemical, and prescribed fire methods.
The FMP posits that the optimal path forward is a combination of treatment methods. The FMP provides the City with a toolkit of effective methods for each management task, while allowing staff the flexibility to complete the task by another means if one option is not available.
Public Review Process
The draft FMP was distributed for public review and comment on August 4, 2022. The FMP was made available on the City’s website and at the Pacific Grove Public Library. The public comment period was advertised on the City’s social media accounts, the City’s website, and in the City Manager’s Report. The public was encouraged to review the documents and provide comments/feedback by close of business on September 14, 2022.
Between August 4, 2022, and September 14, 2022, the formal comment period, 35 public comments were received. Following the closing of the public comment period, the City received 1 additional comment.
BNRC Review
At their November 15, 2022, meeting, the Beautification and Natural Resource Commission (BNRC) reviewed the draft plan. Ultimately, the BNRC did not recommend implementation of any of the noted treatments and did not recommend FMP adoption primarily due to their concerns regarding CEQA. The PGCC 9-6-2023
BNRC expressed concerns that the full plan would require a CEQA analysis prior to the implementation of any individual proposed plan treatment.
Following the meeting, the City, in conjunction with Dudek, prepared a Revised Plan Memo (Attachment 2), that addresses the BNRCs concerns. This memo was also reviewed by the City Attorney’s office. The memo provides clarity that although the plan provides a robust toolkit of strategies, the initial approach to executing the plan is to proceed with the vegetation treatment recommendations for creating defensible space and reducing wildfire risks within the park near the homes around the park perimeter. Moreover, the memo states that this action is Categorically Exempt from CEQA (Class 4).
CEQA Compliance
The FMP provides the City with a roadmap and toolkit for forest maintenance and management. Should the Council direct staff to proceed with implementation of individual treatment activities, each method would be analyzed for CEQA compliance.
As previously noted, moving forward with the creation of a defensible space up to 100 feet from property fence lines into the park, is CEQA exempt. Annually, the City mows the park perimeter (30-40 ft) but has not historically addressed the defensible space adjacent to properties as prescribed in the plan.
The FMP provides a set of management activities, a robust toolkit of methods for execution, and blueprint for implementation to manage and foster a healthy forest at GWP. The park requires proper management and can no longer sit idle or proceed with piecemeal management activities that do not consider the long-term forest health and minimally address known issues – like the need for fuel management and forest regeneration.
Ultimately, staff is bringing the 2022 management plan before the Council to allow public discourse on a path forward. Staff is aware that stakeholders are not receptive to the plan, as it is written and the BNRC did not recommend approval as written.
Nevertheless, due diligence requires staff to formally bring this item before the Council for review and direction.
As noted above and below, additional funding has been allocated to proceed with the initial process of updating the 1999 GWP Master Plan. Staff has met with stakeholders to discuss a collective vision and plan forward.
ADDITIONAL EFFORTS FUNDED FOR GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK MANAGEMENT As part of the FY23/24 Budget hearing process, the City Council approved the following additional effort which directly pertains to park management:
Effort Budget
Allocation Purpose
1999 George Washington
Park Master Plan Update $28,000 Update the biological assessment for all zoneof the park (1-4) PGCC 9-6-2023
On August 23, 2023, City Staff, Councilmember Coletti, and George Washington Park stakeholders met to discuss the newly funded FY23/24 effort and ongoing efforts associated with GWP management (2022 FMP & Community Wildfire Protection Plan). The goal of the meeting was to discuss the shared vision and approach forward.
Ultimately, the group reached consensus on the following approach:
Proceed with producing a new multi-seasonal biological assessment for all zones of the park Once complete, the biological assessment would be used as a basis for updating the 1999 George Washington Park Master Plan
This process would also consider information and recommendations gathered from the 2022 GWP FMP, the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (currently in development) and any other relevant data sources to develop one cohesive set of recommendations for the entirety of the park (Zones 1 – 4).
Next Steps
If direction is provided to proceed with the multi-seasonal, comprehensive biological assessment staff will begin obtaining quotes for the service. If $28,000 is not sufficient for this effort, staff will return to council to provide costing and potential options/next steps.
PROPOSED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1999 GWP
MASTER PLAN & APPROVED CIP PROJECTS
The Public Works Department continues to receive requests to perform maintenance to the trail and improve park signage. Staff is looking for formal direction to proceed with trail and signage improvements and other maintenance activities consistent with the approved 1999 GWP Master Plan until a new plan can be developed and approved.
As part of the FY23/24 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved the GWP Enhancement Project, with a budget of $50,000. This project aims to address the trail network maintenance and enhance/replace existing park signage. These activities are consistent with the approved 1999 George Washington Park Master Plan.
OPTIONS
1. Approve the 2022 FMP
2. Reject the 2022 FMP
3. Provide alternative direction on the FMP
4. Authorize staff to proceed with a multi-seasonal biological assessment
5. Do not authorize staff to proceed with a multi-seasonal biological assessment
6. Provide alternative direction on the biological assessment FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report. $46,000 was allocated to allow for the development of the 2022 FMP as part of the CIP; approximately 90% of the project funding has been expended and the draft plan is complete. If the City Council opted to proceed with FMP recommendations, the costs would be assessed from a CEQA and a budgetary perspective, and staff would return to council for authorization.
PGCC 9-6-2023
If directed to proceed with producing an updated biological assessment for all zones of the park, staff will harness the $28,000 approved via the FY23/24 operating budget.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
Attachments
Forest Management Plan
Revised Plan Memo
1999 Master Plan
PGCC 9-6-2023
Forest Management Plan
George Washington Park
JULY 2022
Prepared for:
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
2100 Sunset Drive
Pacific Grove, California 93950
Contact: Daniel Gho
Prepared by:
1630 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94612
Contact: Jeremy Cawn
__________________________
Scott Eckhardt
Urban Forester
__________________________
Jeremy Cawn
Urban Forester
PGCC 9-6-2023
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
PGCC 9-6-2023
13676 i JULY 2022
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................. v Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Overview of Objectives, Scope, and Goals......................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Forest Inventory ...................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Inventory Plots and Plot Location ............................................................................................ 7
3.2 Field Visits ............................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 8 4 Summary of Current Forest Conditions ........................................................................................................... 11
4.1 General Description ............................................................................................................................. 11
4.2 History .................................................................................................................................................. 11
4.3 Geology, Topography, and Soils .......................................................................................................... 12
4.3.1 Geology ................................................................................................................................... 12
4.3.2 Topography ............................................................................................................................. 12
4.3.3 Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 12
4.4 Climate ................................................................................................................................................. 12
4.5 Vegetation Forest Types and Wildlife Habitat Relationships ........................................................... 15
4.5.1 Forest Description .................................................................................................................. 15
4.5.2 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................... 15
4.6 Current Forest Conditions ................................................................................................................... 21
4.6.1 Forest Composition ................................................................................................................ 21
4.6.2 Tree Age and Size .................................................................................................................. 21
4.6.3 Tree Health ............................................................................................................................. 23
4.6.4 Stand Density ......................................................................................................................... 24
4.7 Summary of Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 24
4.8 Fire Environment ................................................................................................................................. 25
4.8.1 Fire History ............................................................................................................................. 25
4.8.2 Fuel Model and Fuel Loads ................................................................................................... 25
4.8.3 Field Assessment ................................................................................................................... 26 PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 ii JULY 2022
4.8.4 Fire Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 26
4.8.5 Fire Hazard Severity Zones ................................................................................................... 26
4.9 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 26 5 Summary of Potential Forest Threats .............................................................................................................. 27
5.1 Climate ................................................................................................................................................. 27
5.1.1 Drought ................................................................................................................................... 27
5.1.2 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................... 27
5.2 Insects .................................................................................................................................................. 27
5.3 Disease ................................................................................................................................................ 28
5.4 Invasive Plants ..................................................................................................................................... 29 6 Management and Maintenance Recommendations for Promoting Forest Health and Minimizing Risk Over the Next 5 Years ........................................................................................................... 31
6.1 Fire Hazard Reduction ......................................................................................................................... 31
6.2 Forest Restoration ............................................................................................................................... 32
6.3 Trails Management ............................................................................................................................. 39
6.4 Five-Year Management and Maintenance Schedule ........................................................................ 39 7 Materials and Labor Needed to Reach Management and Maintenance Recommendations Over the Next 5 Years ...................................................................................................... 45
7.1 Treatment Methods ............................................................................................................................. 45
7.1.1 Mechanical ............................................................................................................................. 45
7.1.2 Manual.................................................................................................................................... 46
7.1.3 Biological ................................................................................................................................ 46
7.1.4 Chemical ................................................................................................................................. 47
7.1.5 Prescribed Fire ....................................................................................................................... 47
7.1.6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 48
7.2 Treatment Plan .................................................................................................................................... 48
7.2.1 Fire Hazard Reduction ........................................................................................................... 48
7.2.2 Forest Restoration ................................................................................................................. 49
7.2.3 Biological Resource Protection ............................................................................................. 49 8 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 51 9 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 53 TABLES
1 Potential to Occur: Special-Status Plants ........................................................................................................ 16 2 Potential to Occur: Special-Status Animals ..................................................................................................... 20 3 Forest Composition by Zone ............................................................................................................................. 21 4a Tree Diameter Class (Quadratic Mean Diameter): Zone 2 ............................................................................. 22 PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 iii JULY 2022
4b Tree Diameter Class (Quadratic Mean Diameter): Zone 3 ............................................................................. 22 4c Tree Diameter Class (Quadratic Mean Diameter): Zone 4 ............................................................................. 22 5 Forest Regeneration – Tree Seedlings Observed by Species ......................................................................... 22 6a Forest Tree Health by Zone: All Zones ............................................................................................................. 23 6b Forest Tree Health by Zone: Zone 2 ................................................................................................................. 23 6c Forest Tree Health by Zone: Zone 3 ................................................................................................................. 23 6d Forest Tree Health by Zone: Zone 4 ................................................................................................................. 23 7 Average Trees Per Acre by Species and Zone ................................................................................................. 24 8 Goals 1 and 2 Five-Year Timetable .................................................................................................................. 40
FIGURES
1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Forest Inventory Plot Locations ........................................................................................................................... 9 3 Project Site ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 4 Fire Hazard Reduction Zone ............................................................................................................................. 33 5 Reforestation Zones .......................................................................................................................................... 35 6 Tree Planting Locations .................................................................................................................................... 37 7 Main Trail System .............................................................................................................................................. 43
APPENDICES
A Soil Types
B Biological Constraints Report
C Site Photos
D Forest Inventory Data Forms
E Local Tree Nurseries
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 iv JULY 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PGCC 9-6-2023
13676
v JULY 2022
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
City City of Pacific Grove
FMP Forest Management Plan
Park George Washington Park
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 vi JULY 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PGCC 9-6-2023
13676 vii JULY 2022
Executive Summary
This Forest Management Plan (FMP) describes the management strategies that the City of Pacific Grove will take in the approximately 17-acre forested area of George Washington Park (Park) over the 5-year FMP timeframe to reduce wildfire hazard to the homes surrounding the Park and to restore healthy forest conditions to the interior of the Park. This FMP was developed to meet the City of Pacific Grove’s goals of reducing the risk of a destructive wildfire spreading in the Park and to improve the overall forest health within the forested area of the Park.
Development of this FMP included a forest inventory, which was used to describe the current vegetative conditions within the forest, determine the wildfire hazards in the areas near the surrounding homes, and map the trail system in the forested area. The data collected during the inventory was used to identify and map conditions, such as composition, health, and disease, throughout the forested area of the Park.
George Washington Park is a 20-acre urban park with a 17-acre Monterey pine–coast live oak forest. The forested area of the Park is unique in that it contains relatively natural forest conditions in an urban area and that it contains a Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)–dominated forest, a forest type with a range limited to the California coastal area.
The composition of the forest overstory is in the process of transitioning away from Monterey pine dominance to oak dominated because of limited pine reproduction and a dense layer of surface and understory vegetation. The dense layer of surface vegetation, mainly non-native grasses, also creates a wildfire hazard by forming a continuous layer of readily ignitable fuel on the forest floor.
The forested areas of the Park are threatened by several factors that are driving the transition from a pine forest to an oak forest, decreasing overall forest health, and increasing the risk of destructive wildfire. Drought and the closely related wildfire risk are the most prevalent in the forested areas, but they impact all the vegetation. Insect infestations and disease infections are most directly impactful to the Monterey pine in the forest, degrading tree health and killing mature trees. Invasive vegetation is indirectly impactful on the entire forest overstory and understory vegetation by competing for moisture in the soil and preventing tree and shrub reproduction on the forest floor.
This FMP describes management strategies for the forested area of the Park to address the decline in Monterey pine trees in the forest overstory and to reduce of the risk of destructive wildfire spreading through the Park. It recommends vegetation management activities applied to overstory, understory, and surface vegetation. Specific recommendations are divided into to two categories. The first recommendation is to conduct vegetation management actions in an area around the perimeter of the forested area of the Park to reduce the risk of a destructive wildfire by reducing the overall volume of surface vegetation and to reduce the risk of fire moving from the surface to the tree canopy by trimming or removing vegetation on the forest surface. The second recommendation is for vegetation management within the Park interior to create conditions that are conducive to the reproduction and development of new trees. In addition to the recommendations, a timeline is provided that describes the forest management activities and when they should occur over the FMP’s 5-year timeline.
George Washington Park is a unique natural feature of Pacific Grove. The strategies described in this FMP are intended to help maintain the forested area of the Park in a healthy and safe condition for the enjoyment of nearby residents and the community.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 viii JULY 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PGCC 9-6-2023
13676 1 JULY 2022
1 Introduction
George Washington Park (Park) is a 20-acre park located on the west side of Pacific Grove, California. The Park is composed of an approximately 3-acre developed recreation area and an approximately 17-acre natural forest area. The developed area of the Park is largely covered with well-spaced mature oak trees, and the forested area contains a Monterey pine–coast live oak forest. The Park is surrounded by a residential neighborhood (see Figure 1, Project Location).
The forested area of the Park is changing in composition and tree size, moving from a pine tree–dominant forest to an oak tree–dominant forest. Forest management activities in the forested areas of the Park have been primarily focused on removing dead or hazardous trees and reducing the buildup of flammable vegetation. Because the Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) element of the forest is reliant on disturbance for regeneration (e.g., low-intensity fire), there has been a gradual transition away from a forest where pine trees are the dominant trees to a forest where oak trees are the dominant trees as the mature pines die without suitable replacement. The forested area of the Park is also at risk from threats that are increasing stress on all the trees, regardless of species, such as drought, insects, and disease. Ongoing drought, combined with an overall warmer, dryer climate, not only threatens the health of the forest, but also increases the risk of a destructive wildfire occurring within the Park.
This Forest Management Plan (FMP) identifies general practices and Plan-specific management recommendations to address the City of Pacific Grove’s goal of creating a safe and healthy forest in George Washington Park. The goals, objectives, and recommendations identified in this FMP are based on existing conditions observed in the Park and have been designed to reduce the risk of a destructive wildfire spreading out of the Park and to promote overall forest health in the Park, because a healthier forest is more resilient to threats. Finally, this FMP includes a treatment prescription and timetable for the City of Pacific Grove (City) to create its desired conditions within the Park.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 2 JULY 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFTBLANK
PGCC 9-6-2023
Project Location
George Washington Park Forest Management Plan
SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Monterey Quadrangle 0 1,000 2,000Feet FIGURE 1
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 4 JULY 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PGCC 9-6-2023
13676 5 JULY 2022
2 Overview of Objectives, Scope,
and Goals
2.1 Objectives
The City of Pacific Grove desires to have a safe and healthy forest in George Washington Park, one that can be sustainably maintained by the City. To achieve this goal, three objectives were developed for the management of the forested areas within the Park:
Reduce the risk of wildfire to the surrounding community by reducing or removing flammable vegetation in the Park that is within 100 feet of homes.
Improve forest health and foster a forest with a healthy distribution of trees ages and sizes by reducing competition from surface vegetation and encouraging tree regeneration.
Improve the safety of Park users and residents by removing trees that have a high likelihood of failing and causing injury or property damage.
This FMP provides direction for achieving these three objectives.
2.2 Scope
The scope of this FMP covers the forested area of George Washington Park that begins north of the baseball diamond and ends at the border of the Park along Short Street. The management recommendations in this FMP are divided into two strategies relating to location in the Park and the objective to be achieved. The first strategy is to create a wildfire risk reduction zone along the perimeter of the forested area where the goal is to maintain the vegetation in a condition that minimizes the risk of a high-intensity wildfire spreading throughout the Park. The second strategy is to create a forest restoration zone in the interior of the forested area where the goal is to maintain conditions to support a healthy Monterey pine–oak forest. The recommendations described for each zone are specific to the management objectives for the zone.
The timeframe for the FMP is 5 years, which is suitable to accomplish the FMP’s management recommendations for wildfire risk reduction and to establish the conditions required for successful forest restoration. The goals, objectives, and recommendations contained in this FMP should be reviewed at the end of the 5-year timeframe, following a re-evaluation of the Park’s forested areas and an evaluation of the success of the management activities recommended in this FMP. Following such a review, revisions to FMP goals, objectives, and/or recommendations may be necessary to reflect forest conditions within the Park at that time.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 6 JULY 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PGCC 9-6-2023
13676 7 JULY 2022
3 Methods
3.1 Forest Inventory
3.1.1 Inventory Plots and Plot Location
To assess the composition and condition of the forest in George Washington Park, Dudek foresters conducted an inventory of the trees and vegetation in the forested area of the Park. The foresters measured approximately 20% of the forested area of the Park. The measured area was divided evenly among 14 measurement plots, with each plot covering an area of approximately 0.25 acres. Working with Dudek GIS specialists, the 14 plots were laid out on a map of the Park, with the plots evenly spaced and well-distributed across the entire forested area, and located a minimum of 50 feet from the edge of the Park, road, or developed area of the Park. Figure 2, Forest Inventory Plot Locations, is a map of the plot locations.
3.2 Field Visits
Dudek’s foresters conducted an inventory of the forest on October 5 and 8, 2021. Each of the 14 pre-determined plots was visited during the inventory. At each plot, Dudek foresters pinned the plot center with a marking pin and measured out 59 feet from the pin to the north, east, west, and south to establish the plot’s borders. Within the plot boundaries, Dudek foresters measured all of the trees that were larger than 3 inches in diameter at standard height (4.5 feet above the ground). For each measured tree Dudek foresters recorded the following data:
▪ Diameter: Tree diameter at standard height was measured at 4.5 feet above the ground using a diameter tape. Tree diameters were visually estimated when trunks were inaccessible due to poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) vines.
▪ Height: Tree height was measured with a clinometer at a baseline of 66 feet from the tree trunk. Tree heights were visually estimated for nearby trees when a similar-sized tree had been measured with the clinometer. ▪ Condition: Tree condition was assessed based on the overall health of the tree (e.g., live crown ratio, presence of disease or infestation) and overall structure. Trees were graded on a scale from “Excellent” to “Dead.”
▪ Species: Tree species was recorded.
In addition, Dudek foresters recorded the following data at each plot:
▪ Tree Regeneration Information: Trees that were smaller than 3 inches in diameter were counted and had their species identified.
▪ Forest Surface Composition: Plant species composition and the percentage of the surface area of the plot they covered were taken.
▪ Flammable Vegetation: Flammable vegetation types and estimates of fuel loads were recorded. ▪ Photographs: Photos were taken facing north, east, south, and west.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 8 JULY 2022
During a separate site visit on September 23, 2021, Dudek foresters walked the perimeter of the forested zones of the Park to identify dead or trees with significant defects that could potentially fail and strike one of the surrounding roads or nearby structures.
3.3 Data Analysis
After the 14 plots were inventoried, the data collected was analyzed to obtain the following forest characteristics:
▪ Basal area is a measure of the cross-sectional area (in square feet) of the trees on a unit of land. For this FMP, basal area is provided as the cross-sectional area of the trees per acre. Basal area is a useful measurement for determining forest density, and forest density is an indicator of forest health and productivity. ▪ Quadratic mean diameter is the average diameter of the trees measured on a per-acre basis. Quadratic mean diameter is preferred in forestry because it better represents the average diameter of the trees in a forest, particularly when the forest is composed of larger, mature trees. ▪ Trees per acre is the count of the number of trees per acre. Trees per acre is another measurement of forest density.
▪ Average tree height is the average height of the trees in the forest on a per-acre basis. Average height is a useful measurement of tree age, and when organized by species, helps to understand the structure of a forest.
▪ Species composition measures the unique tree species observed and a count of each tree by species at each plot. This data is then used determine the composition of the forest by zone by comparing the number of trees observed by species to the number of trees counted. ▪ Regeneration is the number of seedlings counted at each plot. The data collected at each plot is summed with the regeneration data from the three adjacent plots to get the number of seedlings per acre. ▪ Forest surface composition was determined based on the plant species identified and recorded for each plot during the inventory, and by the data recorded during the biological resource assessment. ▪ Fire behavior fuel models were determined by visual estimation and photographic comparison with the fuel mode descriptions in the Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model (Brugan and Scott 2005).
PGCC 9-6-2023
Forest Inventory Plot Locations
George Washington Park Forest Management Plan
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2021, Monterey County 0 200 400Feet
FIGURE 2
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 10 JULY 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PGCC 9-6-2023
13676 11 JULY 2022
4 Summary of Current Forest Conditions
4.1 General Description
George Washington Park is located within Pacific Grove and is situated between 140 and 180 feet above sea level.
The Park is bordered by Short Street to the north, Alder Street to the east, Sinex Avenue to the south, and Melrose Street/17 Mile Drive to the west. The Park is rectangular in shape, covering 20 acres. The Park is divided by Pine Street, an east/west street that separates the Park into a north and south section, with the south section being the larger of the two. The Park has been divided by the City into four zones (1–4) (Figure 3, Project Site), with Zone 1 being the southern zone and Zone 4 being the northern zone. The zones vary in size; Zone 4 is the largest, Zones 2 and 3 are roughly equal in size, and Zone 1 is the smallest. Zone 1 contains developed recreation sites, including a playground, ballfield, picnic facilities, and restrooms. Zones 2, 3, and 4 are generally unimproved forest land.
There are several trails that run roughly south to north through the forested area, as well as benches and trash cans along the perimeter of the forested area.
Adjacent land uses consist of residential development composed entirely of single-family homes. Most of the homes are separated from the Park by a public street, with the exception of two rows of homes on the west side of the Park: one near the northern border of the Park and the other at the southern border of the Park.
4.2 History
The current forest that covers George Washington Park has its origins in the 1850s when the area that comprises the Park was last logged and burned. Cattle were grazed on the site following logging until they were removed sometime before the end of the century. By 1925, when the City purchased the land containing the present-day boundaries of the Park, the property supported a Monterey pine forest with an expanding understory of oak trees. In 1948, the City passed an ordinance to limit the use of the property to a recreational park (City of Pacific Grove 1999).
Recent management of the forested area of the Park has been focused on maintaining a safe environment for Park users and nearby residents. Management activities performed by the City include the removal of downed trees, slash (i.e., the treetops, limbs, and other woody material left behind after tree work), and logs. Standing dead trees have been removed that are within striking distance of the structures near the Park or trails within the Park. On an annual basis, surface vegetation within 50 feet of the Park borders is weed-whacked or mowed. The City has planted new trees at several locations throughout the forested area of the Park in the last 20 years, including a cluster of Monterey pine trees on the east side of Zone 4 and a cluster of Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis) trees near the south border of Zone 2.
In addition to managing the vegetation in the forest, the City has also maintained the trail system that traverses the Park. Designated trails have been reconstructed in areas of excessive wear and vegetation, particularly poison oak, that has encroached on a designated trail has been cut back. Old trails and unofficial trails that impact the forest have been decommissioned and blocked with logs or piled cut material.
The City’s forest management work has been supplemented by volunteer activities. Volunteer gardeners have completed several vegetation management projects within the forested area, including establishment of a native plant area and several successful Monterey pine plantings (or transplanting).
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 12 JULY 2022
4.3 Geology, Topography, and Soils
4.3.1 Geology
The underlying geologic units of the Park are quaternary alluvium and marine deposits from the Pliocene to Holocene epoch, between the present time and 1.6 million years ago. The quaternary alluvium deposits are generally young and made up of unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay-bearing material. The Park is located on a marine terrace (CGS 2021).
4.3.2 Topography
The Park property occupies a portion of the west-facing slope and the ridgeline of a gentle (2% to 8%), low-elevation ridge that runs from Huckleberry Hill to the ocean. The Park has a predominantly west-facing aspect, and elevations in the Park generally run from lowest to highest moving from west to east. However, there is a hill located in the middle of the Park near the corner of Pine Street and Alder Street. This hill creates a noticeable “hump” on the terrain when moving from south to north through the Park, and near the hill the aspect changes from west-facing to north- or south-facing, depending on which side of the hill a viewer is on.
4.3.3 Soils
Soils within the Park are composed of three soil types, all characterized as being predominantly sandy soils and being of a similar parent material: clayey marine deposits derived from sedimentary rock or stabilized sands (NRCS 2021). A detailed description of the soil types found within the Park can be found in Appendix A.
4.4 Climate
Pacific Grove, California, is in a warm-summer Mediterranean climate that is defined by temperate, wet winters, and warm or hot dry summers (Seager et al. 2019). Pacific Grove has an average daytime high temperature of 69°F in the summer and 60°F in the winter. Average daytime low temperatures are 54°F in the summer and 44°F in the winter. Precipitation averages approximately 20 inches per year, with January being the wettest month of the year.
Prevailing winds are out the west and west-northwest (WRCC 2021).
PGCC 9-6-2023
Project Site
George Washington Park Forest Management Plan
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2021, Monterey County 0 200 400Feet
FIGURE 3
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 14 JULY 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 15 JULY 2022
4.5 Vegetation Forest Types and Wildlife
Habitat Relationships
4.5.1 Forest Description
The forested areas of George Washington Park contain one forest or vegetation type: a Monterey pine forest. Within the forested zones of the Park, Monterey pine exists as the dominant tree, with mature pine trees forming an open, discontinuous canopy in the forest overstory. Below the pine trees is a generally continuous mid-story canopy, predominantly made up of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees with scattered smaller Monterey pines and several other tree species.1 As a result of the combined pine and oak canopies, the forested area of the Park is a predominantly closed canopy forest. Areas of open canopy forest are present, notably in the portions of the forest where there has been recent mature pine tree loss. The understory and surface vegetation in the forested area varies, ranging from minimal surface vegetation in heavily shaded areas, to areas of continuous grass and thickets of native vines and low shrubs (poison oak, California blackberry [Rubus ursinus], wild cucumber [Cucumis anguria]) in forest canopy openings. Areas of non-native grasses are the most common component of the understory throughout the forest. Dead and down trees are present throughout the forested zones of the Park, with two areas of concentrated dead and down trees: near the south border of Zone 2 and near the corner of Pine Avenue and Melrose Street in Zone 4.
4.5.2 Wildlife
Wildlife species observed or expected to occur in the Park are those that are adapted to forested lands, Monterey cypress–Monterey pine stands, and urban landscapes with moderate human activity. Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) was the only amphibian or reptile species observed during the site visit, although common species such as Sierran tree frog (Pseudacris sierra), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus) are also likely to occur. Common bird species observed included black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), and California towhee (Melozone crissalis). Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) were observed in the Park during the forest inventory. The Park is within the historic overwintering range for monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), which were observed during the site visits.
Tables 1 and 2 describe the special-status plant and animal species native to the region that have the potential to occur within the Park. A detailed description of the special-status plants and wildlife with the potential to be present within the Park is provided in Appendix B.
1 Other tree species observed included toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and acacia. These tree species make up a very minor component of the forest.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 16 JULY 2022
Table 1. Potential to Occur: Special-Status Plants
Scientific Name Common Name
Habitat/Blooming
Period/Elevation
(feet) Potential to Occur
Allium hickmanii Hickman’s onion Closed-cone
coniferous forest,
Chaparral (maritime),
coastal prairie, coastal
scrub, valley and
foothill grassland/
perennial bulbiferous
herb/Mar–May/
16–655
Moderate potential to occur. The closest
known occurrences is within 1.3 miles of
George Washington Park (Park). Bulb species
can persist in understory for a long time. There
is suitable habitat.
Arctostaphylos
hookeri ssp.
hookeri
Hooker’s
manzanita
Closed-cone
coniferous forest,
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, coastal
scrub; sandy/
perennial evergreen
shrub/Jan–June/
197–1,755
Moderate potential to occur. The closest
known occurrences is within 0.1 miles of the
Park. There is suitable habitat.
Arctostaphylos
pumila
sandmat
manzanita
Closed-cone
coniferous forest,
chaparral (maritime),
cismontane woodland,
coastal dunes, coastal
scrub; sandy,
openings/
perennial evergreen
shrub/Feb–May/
10–675
High potential to occur. There are three known
locations of this species within 0.5 miles of
the Park. There is suitable habitat for this
species.
Castilleja ambigua
var. insalutata
pink Johnny-nip Coastal prairie,
coastal scrub/annual
herb (hemiparasitic)/
May–Aug/0–330
Low potential to occur. California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB) Occ. No. 12 for
the Monterey Quad overlaps the Park, and the
population is noted as presumed extant.
However, the Park does not contain much
suitable habitat.
Chorizanthe
pungens var.
pungens
Monterey
spineflower
Chaparral (maritime),
cismontane
woodland, coastal
dunes, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill
grassland;
sandy/annual herb/
Apr–June(July–Aug)/
10–1,475
Low potential to occur. CNDDB Occ. No. 17 for
the Monterey Quad overlaps the Park and the
population is noted as presumed extant.
However, the Park does not contain much
suitable habitat.
Clarkia jolonensis Jolon clarkia Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, coastal
scrub, riparian
Low potential to occur. CNDDB Occ. No. 13 for
the Monterey Quad overlaps the Park, but the
population is extirpated. The closest extant
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 17 JULY 2022
Table 1. Potential to Occur: Special-Status Plants
Scientific Name Common Name
Habitat/Blooming
Period/Elevation
(feet) Potential to Occur
woodland/annual
herb/Apr–June/
66–2,165
population is more than 7.5 miles from the
Park.
Collinsia
multicolor
San Francisco
collinsia
Closed-cone
coniferous forest,
coastal scrub;
sometimes
serpentinite/
annual herb/
(Feb)Mar–May/
98–902
High potential to occur. CNDDB Occ. No. 1 for
the Monterey Quad overlaps the Park, and the
population is noted as presumed extant. There
is suitable habitat.
Cordylanthus
rigidus ssp.
littoralis
seaside bird’sbeak Closed-cone
coniferous forest,
chaparral (maritime),
cismontane
woodland, coastal
dunes, coastal scrub;
sandy, often
disturbed
sites/annual herb
(hemiparasitic)/Apr–
Oct/0–1,685
Low potential to occur. The Park does have
suitable habitat. However, the closest known
extant occurrences are more than 5.3 miles
away.
Delphinium
hutchinsoniae
Hutchinson’s
larkspur
Broadleafed upland
forest, chaparral,
coastal prairie,
coastal scrub/
perennial herb/Mar–
June/0–1,400
Low potential to occur. CNDDB Occ. No. 9 for
the Monterey Quad overlaps the Park, and the
population is noted as presumed extant.
However, the Park does not contain much
suitable habitat.
Ericameria
fasciculata
Eastwood’s
goldenbush
Closed-cone
coniferous forest,
chaparral (maritime),
coastal dunes,
coastal scrub; sandy,
openings/perennial
evergreen
shrub/July–Oct/98–
900
Low potential to occur. The Park does have
suitable habitat. The closest known
occurrences are 0.5 miles away.
Gilia tenuiflora
ssp. arenaria
Monterey gilia Chaparral (maritime),
cismontane
woodland, coastal
dunes, coastal scrub;
sandy, openings
/annual herb/Apr–
June/0–150
Moderate potential to occur. There are four
known occurrences within 0.5 miles of the
Park. However, suitable habitat would be most
likely in forest canopy openings.
Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa
Monterey
cypress
Closed-cone
coniferous forest/
Not expected to occur. This species is present
in the Park but is not naturalized. This species
only occurs in two natural stands in Monterey
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 18 JULY 2022
Table 1. Potential to Occur: Special-Status Plants
Scientific Name Common Name
Habitat/Blooming
Period/Elevation
(feet) Potential to Occur
perennial evergreen
tree/N.A./33–100
County (not in the Park). The species is widely
planted and naturalized elsewhere on the
coast and beyond.
Horkelia cuneata
var. sericea
Kellogg’s
horkelia
Closed-cone
coniferous forest,
chaparral (maritime),
coastal dunes,
coastal scrub; sandy
or gravelly, openings/
perennial herb/Apr–
Sep/33–655
Moderate potential to occur. CNDDB Occ. No.
8 for the Monterey Quad overlaps the Park,
and the population is noted as presumed
extant. There is suitable habitat, especially
along forest edges and in canopy openings.
Layia carnosa beach layia Coastal dunes,
coastal scrub
(sandy)/annual herb/
Mar–July/0–195
Low potential to occur. There are two known
occurrences within 0.5 miles of the Park.
However, the Park does not contain much
suitable habitat.
Lupinus
tidestromii
Tidestrom’s
lupine
Coastal dunes/
perennial
rhizomatous
herb/Apr–June/
0–330
Low potential to occur. There are seven known
occurrences within 1 mile of the Park.
However, the Park does not contain much
suitable habitat.
Malacothamnus
palmeri var.
involucratus
Carmel Valley
bush-mallow
Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, coastal
scrub/
perennial deciduous
shrub/Apr–Oct/
98–3,605
Moderate potential to occur. CNDDB Occ. No.
20 for the Monterey Quad overlaps the Park,
and the population is noted as presumed
extant. However, the Park does not contain
much suitable habitat.
Microseris
paludosa
marsh
microseris
Closed-cone
coniferous forest,
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, valley
and foothill grassland/
perennial herb/Apr–
June(July)/16–1,160
High potential to occur. CNDDB Occ. No. 3 for
the Monterey Quad overlaps the Park, and the
population is noted as presumed extant. There
is suitable habitat for this species.
Monardella
sinuata ssp.
nigrescens
northern curlyleaved
monardella
Chaparral (SCR Co.),
coastal dunes,
coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous
forest (SCR Co.,
ponderosa pine
sandhills); sandy/
annual herb/
(Apr)May–July(Aug–
Sep)/0–985
High potential to occur. CNDDB Occ. No. 4 for
the Monterey Quad overlaps the Park, and the
population is noted as presumed extant. There
is suitable habitat for this species.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 19 JULY 2022
Table 1. Potential to Occur: Special-Status Plants
Scientific Name Common Name
Habitat/Blooming
Period/Elevation
(feet) Potential to Occur
Pinus radiata Monterey pine Closed-cone
coniferous forest,
cismontane
woodland/
perennial evergreen
tree/N.A./82–605
Present. This species is present in the Park
and is within the CNDDB occurrence of its
estimated historic range on the Monterey
peninsula. The species is widely planted and
naturalized elsewhere.
Piperia yadonii Yadon’s rein
orchid
Coastal bluff scrub,
closed-cone
coniferous forest,
chaparral (maritime);
sandy/perennial
herb/(Feb)May–
Aug/33–2,475
Present. CNDDB Occ. No. 4 for the Monterey
Quad states that there is a known population
in the Park.
Potentilla
hickmanii
Hickman’s
cinquefoil
Coastal bluff scrub,
closed-cone
coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps
(vernally mesic),
marshes and swamps
(freshwater)/perennial
herb/Apr–Aug/33–
490
Moderate potential to occur. There is a known
occurrence within 0.6 miles of the Park. There
is suitable habitat.
Ramalina thrausta angel’s hair
lichen
North coast
coniferous forest; on
dead twigs and other
lichens/fruticose
lichen (epiphytic)/
N.A./246–1,410
Moderate potential to occur. There is a known
occurrence within 1.4 miles of the Park. There
is suitable habitat.
Rosa pinetorum pine rose Closed-cone
coniferous forest,
cismontane
woodland/
perennial shrub/
May,July/7–3,100
Moderate potential to occur. There are two
known occurrence within 0.6 miles of the
Park. There is suitable habitat.
Trifolium
hydrophilum
saline clover Marshes and
swamps, valley and
foothill grassland
(mesic, alkaline),
vernal pools/annual
herb/
Apr–June/0–985
Low potential to occur. CNDDB Occ. No. 20 for
the Monterey Quad overlaps the Park. This
based on a 1907 herbarium collection.
However, the Park does not contain much
suitable habitat.
Trifolium polyodon Pacific Grove
clover
Closed-cone
coniferous forest,
coastal prairie,
meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill
grassland; mesic,
Moderate potential to occur. There is a known
occurrence within 0.5 miles of the Park. There
is suitable habitat.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 20 JULY 2022
Table 1. Potential to Occur: Special-Status Plants
Scientific Name Common Name
Habitat/Blooming
Period/Elevation
(feet) Potential to Occur
sometimes granitic/
annual herb/Apr–
June (July)/16–
1,390
Trifolium
trichocalyx
Monterey clover Closed-cone
coniferous forest
(sandy, openings,
burned
areas)/annual
herb/Apr–June/98–
1,000
Moderate potential to occur. There are several
known occurrences within 2 miles of the Park.
There is suitable habitat.
Source: CDFW 2021
Table 2. Potential to Occur: Special-Status Animals
Row Labels Common Name Potential to Occur
Amphibians
Taricha torosa
(Monterey Co. south
only)
California newt Low potential to occur. Although George Washington Park (Park) contains suitable oak forest habitat to support this species, there is no aquatic breeding features to support this species.
Additionally, there are no California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrences for this species within 5 miles of the Park (CDFW 2021).
Reptiles
Anniella pulchra northern California
legless lizard
High potential to occur. The Park contains suitable woodland habitat with sandy soils to support this species. This species was documented within the southwest corner of the Park in 2017 (Occ.
No. 375) (CDFW 2021).
Birds
Elanus leucurus
(nesting)
white-tailed kite Moderate potential to nest on site. The Park contains several suitable nesting trees for this species (e.g., Quercus spp., Pinus spp.), but foraging habitat is limited and the Park is surrounded by residential development. There are no CNDDB occurrences for this species within 5 miles of the Park (CDFW 2021).
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend’s bigeared bat Moderate potential to occur. Although the Park contains suitable coniferous and deciduous forest habitat, limestone caves, lava tubes, and built structures are absent from the site for roosting.
However, the species may forage on the site from time to time.
There are no documented CNDDB occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the Park (CDFW 2021).
Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat High potential to occur. The numerous trees on the Park are suitable for roosting by this species.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 21 JULY 2022
Table 2. Potential to Occur: Special-Status Animals
Row Labels Common Name Potential to Occur
Invertebrates
Danaus plexippus
pop. 1
monarch butterfly Present. The Park contains suitable habitat for this species, and the species was observed on site during the October 2021 site visit. Additionally, numerous observations of this species has been made from 1960–2014 (Occ. No. 89) (CDFW 2021).
4.6 Current Forest Conditions
On October 5 and October 8, 2021, Dudek foresters performed an inventory of the forested areas in Zones 2, 3, and 4. Measurements were taken at 14 pre-determined inventory plots that were evenly distributed throughout the three forest zones. The data recorded during the inventory and the conclusions drawn from this data are the basis for the management strategies described in Chapter 6 of this FMP. Below is a description of the current forest conditions.
4.6.1 Forest Composition
The overall species composition of the forest in the Park consists of Monterey pine, accounting for 32% of the trees, and cost live oak, accounting for 67% of the trees. The other tree species present account for only 1% of the trees in the forest. Species composition varies by zone. In Zone 2, Monterey pine comprises 39% of the forest, coast live oak comprises 56%, and other tree species comprise 5% of the forest. Zone 2 is the only zone where tree species other than Monterey pine or coast live oak were recorded. In Zone 3, Monterey pine comprises 41% of the forest, and coast live oak comprises 59% of the forest. Zone 4 is noticeably different from the other two zones, with Monterey pine composing only 21% of the forest and coast live oak composing 79% of the forest (Table 3).
Table 3. Forest Composition by Zone
Species Total Number Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
All 414 109 123 182
Pine 132 43 50 39
Oak 277 61 73 143
Other 5 5 0 0
4.6.2 Tree Age and Size
All age and size classes are represented within the forested zones of the Park. The distribution of age and size classes differs between the pine and oak trees. Pine trees within the Park are represented evenly across the different age and size classes, while most of the oak trees are in the smaller age and size classes (Tables 4a–4c).
Regeneration2 is present throughout the forest, occurring in scattered patches. Oak regeneration is more abundant and appears to be the result of natural seeding. Pine regeneration is less abundant and appears to be the result of 2 Trees less than 3 inches in diameter were classified as regeneration.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 22 JULY 2022
deliberate planting or transplanting efforts3 (Table 5). All the observed regeneration occurred in openings in the forest canopy where sunlight can reach the forest floor.
Table 4a. Tree Diameter Class (Quadratic Mean Diameter): Zone 2 Species
3 to 8
(Diameter in
Inches)
9 to 14
(Diameter
in Inches)
15 to 20
(Diameter
in Inches)
21 to 26
(Diameter
in Inches)
27 to 32
(Diameter
in Inches)
>32
(Diameter
in Inches)
All 45 31 17 12 2 2
Pine 11 7 12 9 2 1
Oak 33 23 3 1 0 1
Other 1 1 1 2 0 0
Table 4b. Tree Diameter Class (Quadratic Mean Diameter): Zone 3 Species
3 to 8
(Diameter in
Inches)
9 to 14
(Diameter
in Inches)
15 to 20
(Diameter
in Inches)
21 to 26
(Diameter
in Inches)
27 to 32
(Diameter
in Inches)
>32
(Diameter
in Inches)
All 43 41 19 14 5 1
Pine 9 15 9 12 4 1
Oak 34 26 10 2 1 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 4c. Tree Diameter Class (Quadratic Mean Diameter): Zone 4 Species
3 to 8
(Diameter in
Inches)
9 to 14
(Diameter
in Inches)
15 to 20
(Diameter
in Inches)
21 to 26
(Diameter
in Inches)
27 to 32
(Diameter
in Inches)
>32
(Diameter
in Inches)
All 60 68 23 16 10 5
Pine 9 3 7 8 9 3
Oak 51 65 16 8 1 2
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 5. Forest Regeneration – Tree Seedlings Observed by Species Species All Zones Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Per Acre
Pine 48 16 26 6 3
Oak 177 127 37 13 10
Other 0 0 0 0 0
3 Based on personal communications with City staff and residents encountered during the inventory.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 23 JULY 2022
4.6.3 Tree Health
Overall tree health for the forested zones of the Park is generally fair to good, with approximately 67% of the pines and 82% of the oaks being observed to be in fair or good condition. Trees in poor condition account for 17% of both the pine and oak trees. Dead standing trees account for 17% of the pine trees inventoried and 1% of the oak trees. Tree health varies by zone, with pine trees in fair or good condition composing 86% of the forest in Zone 2, but decreasing to 80% in Zone 3, and 75% in Zone 4. Oak tree health is more varied than pine, with oak trees in fair to good condition composing 87% in Zone 2, increasing to 96% in Zone 3, and then decreasing to 75% in Zone 4. Dead trees are evenly distributed across the three forested zones (Tables 6a–6d). The reasons for the distribution of tree health and a specific discussion of the threats to the forest is provided in Chapter 5, Summary of Potential Forest Threats, of this FMP. Photographs of pine and oak trees for health condition categories are included in Appendix C.
Table 6a. Forest Tree Health by Zone: All Zones
Species Good Condition Fair Condition Poor Condition Dead Pine 44 45 22 21
Oak 88 139 47 3
Other 5 0 0 0
Table 6b. Forest Tree Health by Zone: Zone 2
Species Good Condition Fair Condition Poor Condition Dead Pine 14 18 6 5
Oak 25 27 8 1
Other 5 0 0 0
Table 6c. Forest Tree Health by Zone: Zone 3
Species Good Condition Fair Condition Poor Condition Dead Pine 16 17 10 7
Oak 38 32 3 0
Other 0 0 0 0
Table 6d. Forest Tree Health by Zone: Zone 4
Species Good Condition Fair Condition Poor Condition Dead Pine 14 10 6 9
Oak 25 80 36 2
Other 0 0 0 0
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 24 JULY 2022
4.6.4 Stand Density
The number of trees growing in a forest at any point in time shapes the look and character of a forest. Competition among trees has a powerful effect on the growth, health, resiliency, and character of a forest. It affects trees individually, but also as a forest, of which each tree is a part. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the degree of competition influencing trees within a stand. Stand density is a good indicator of this competition being based on tree diameter and the number of trees per acre (Maguire and Withrow-Robinson 2018).
Stand density for the forested zones varies based on tree species. Zones 2 and 3 have relatively similar stand density for pine trees (43–50 trees per acre) and oak trees (61–73 trees per acre). Zone 4 differs, with a lower stand density for pine trees (26 trees per acre) and a higher stand density for oak trees (95 trees per acre). A typical mature Monterey pine stand has a stand density of 32 to 49 trees per acre, and oak trees constitute 25% to 50% of trees in the stand (McDonald and Laacke 1990). Young Monterey pine trees are a component in a typical mature pine forest, but are noticeably absent from the forested zones in the Park, particularly in Zone 4 (see Table 7).
Table 7. Average Trees Per Acre by Species and Zone
Species All Zones Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
Pine 38 43 50 26
Oak 79 61 73 95
Other 1 5 0 0
4.7 Summary of Conditions
The trees in the forested areas of the Park are generally in fair to good condition. The forest overstory is predominantly Monterey pine for most of the forested area; however, many of these mature pines are at the end of the typical lifespan, and are in decline due to multiple environmental stresses, including insects, disease, and climate. Pine trees are generally absent from the mid-story and understory, so there are no maturing pine trees to replace the mature trees that die and fall out of the crown. This is particularly noticeable in Zone 4, where mature pines are a scattered and widely separated component of the overstory. In the absence of pine regeneration, the oak tree component in the mid-story is becoming the dominant forest canopy tree. Oak trees are abundant and well represented across all age and size classes, and have a healthy distribution, with more small young trees than older trees. The oak tree component appears less impacted by insect and disease threats than the pine component.
Tree regeneration within the forested areas of the Park is limited. Natural pine regeneration appears to be rare, and, based on conversations with City staff and residents, is supplemented by City and Park volunteer tree planting projects. Natural oak regeneration is more abundant than pine, but is limited to small patches in the Park, mainly in Zones 2 and 3. There appears to be an adequate seed source on the mature trees for natural regeneration of both pine and oak trees.
Competition from surface vegetation, particularly the dense layer of grass, inhibits the establishment of new trees.
Overall Forest Condition Summary
▪ Monterey pine overstory is made up of trees reaching the end of their natural lifespan ▪ Monterey pine is generally absent from the mid-story and is absent in regeneration ▪ Monterey pine trees per acre/stocking levels are near the bottom of their typical range and are dropping because of lack of regeneration
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 25 JULY 2022
▪ Relatively open stands of mature pine is typical for the species, but it is accompanied by young pine trees growing in the openings
▪ Oak trees are becoming the dominant tree cover in the Park ▪ Oak trees are well represented across all age classes and shows a more healthy distribution, with more young small trees than older trees
▪ Oak tree health and vigor are overall good, and in many areas there is a high density of trees ▪ Oak tree regeneration is better than pine, but still limited to patches ▪ Surface vegetation, particularly non-native grasses, outcompete tree seedlings and prohibit regeneration on the forest floor
Forest inventory data tables that display the individual tree measurements and tree data summaries for each zone are provided in Appendix D.
4.8 Fire Environment
4.8.1 Fire History
Information about fires in the Park and the surrounding area was obtained from the Monterey Fire Department and by reviewing CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) database. Monterey Fire Department has not recorded any vegetation fires within the Park in the last 2 years (Personal Communication MFD 2021). A search of the FRAP database revealed no recorded wildfires have occurred within the Park since 1900 (CAL FIRE 2018).
4.8.2 Fuel Model and Fuel Loads
Forests are assessed for their wildfire potential by looking at the dominant vegetation cover present on the forest surface and in the forest canopy. When assessing wildfire potential, all vegetation present that could burn is described as fuel. The assessment is made by estimating which vegetation would be the most important to the spread of the fire (the primary carrier), and the volume of this type of vegetation that is present. The observed primary carrier and the estimated fuel volume are then compared to fire behavior models created by the U.S. Forest Service to provide a description of the anticipated wildfire potential.
The primary carriers of a wildfire are the small, flashy fuels present on the surface. Within the forested area of the Park there are two primary surface fuels that would allow a wildfire to spread when conditions permitted fire growth:
the areas with continuous annual herbaceous plant and grass cover, and the areas with continuous pine needle cast and hardwood leaf litter. These two fuel types are described below.
TU1 – Low Load Dry Climate Timber–Grass–Shrub
The primary carrier of fire in the TU1 model is a low load of grass and/or shrub with litter. Spread rate is low; flame length low. TU1 represents the heavily shaded areas within the forested zones of the Park where fallen leaf litter and pine needles cover most of the forest floor.
GR4 – Moderate Load, Dry Climate Grass
The primary carrier of fire in the GR4 model is continuous, dry-climate grass; fuel bed depth (height of grass) is about 2 feet. Spread rate is moderate; flame length is low. GR4 represents the open and shade-dappled areas of the forested zones where a continuous layer of grass or other annual herbaceous plants cover most of the forest floor.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 26 JULY 2022
Of the two fuel models, GR4 was the most common in the Park, with 13 out of the 14 plots (Plots 1–13) supporting a dominant annual grass cover. Plot 14 was the only plot meeting the criteria for TU1.
Standing dead and fallen dead trees would contribute to a wildfire but are not well described by the standard fuel models. Throughout the forested zones of the Park there are standing and fallen dead trees, sometimes occurring individually, but more often occurring in clumps. From forester observations during the inventory, the fallen dead trees can be divided into two categories: the large pine trees that have already lost all their needles and branches are generally in an advanced stage of decomposition and lying on the ground, and the smaller fallen oak trees (or large broken pieces of the tree’s crown) that are smaller in diameter but have retained their branches except for the smallest branches; these trees and portions of trees are generally less decayed and are in loose piles.
Accumulations of dead and fallen trees were observed in Plots 2, 12, and 16.
4.8.3 Field Assessment
It is expected that the continuous grass layer on the forest surface will allow a wildfire to spread across the forested zones of the Park. The public streets around the perimeter of the Park, and Pine Street that cuts through Zones 3 and 4 are expected to present barriers to the spread of surface fire in the Park. Throughout all three forested zones, there is a limited understory of woody vegetation and there is adequate space between the tree crowns and the surface vegetation to prevent a surface fire from moving into the tree crowns. Occasional torching is possible where piles of deadwood or fallen trees lie beneath a standing tree.
4.8.4 Fire Hazards
Potential ignition sources for a wildfire include cigarettes; arson; sparks from automobiles, lawnmowers, and landscaping equipment; and unattended cooking fires. High-voltage powerlines are present along the west side of the Park, and a downed wire or equipment failure are potential ignition sources near these wires.
4.8.5 Fire Hazard Severity Zones
The Park and the surrounding neighborhoods are not within a CAL FIRE designated High Fire Hazare Severity Zone.
The nearest High Fire Hazard Severity Zone begins approximately 0.3 miles to the southwest by the Rip Van Winkle Open Space area (CAL FIRE 2018). Between the Park and nearest High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is a developed residential area without the continuous flammable vegetation that could spread a wildfire to the Park.
4.9 Recreation
Zone 1, the developed area at the south end of the Park, contains most of the built structures, including picnic tables, barbecue grills, restrooms, a large play structure, and a baseball field. The forested zones of the Park contain some changes, including a trail system that runs south/north, several benches around the perimeter of the forested area of the Park, and several native habitat restoration enclosures. The trail system consists of two main trails that run the south to north length of the Park, and several accessory trails that connect the main trails to each other or connect a main trail to one of the adjacent streets. Several unofficial or casual trails are present in forested areas, mainly forming connections between the two main trails.
PGCC 9-6-2023
13676 27 JULY 2022
5 Summary of Potential Forest Threats
The trees within the forested zones of George Washington Park are subject to a variety of threats. The impact of each threat on forest health varies by tree species, age, and size, and existing condition of the tree. The condition of the trees in the forested areas are generally the result of several threats whose impacts are cumulative. As a result, there is not a single dominant threat to the forested area of the Park.
5.1 Climate
5.1.1 Drought
Drought is a recurring feature of California’s climate. Recent drought events include a 5-year drought in 2012– 2016, and a 3-year drought in 2007–2009, as well as the current drought event that began in 2020. Monterey County is currently experiencing severe drought (D2) conditions (NIDIS 2022).
Drought is the most prevalent threat to the trees within the Park. Drought or water stress results in reduced photosynthesis, which reduces a tree’s growth rate, reduces the ability of the tree to make and store energy reserves, reduces the tree’s ability to compartmentalize wounds, and reduces the amount of energy the tree has for defense, predisposing it to infestation or infection by damaging insects and diseases.
The effects of drought are visible on Park trees by leaf or needle drooping, a sparse crown, branch tip dieback, and leaf drop. Pine and oak trees within the Park are both being affected by drought, with 18% of the pines showing signs of significant drought stress and 10% of the oaks showing signs of significant drought stress.
Drought conditions also increase the risk of a destructive wildfire spreading in the forested areas of the Park.
5.1.2 Wildfire
Wildfire is another recurring feature of California’s climate. Increases in wildfire frequency and severity are correlated to periods of drought. No recorded wildfires have occurred within the Park; however, several large wildfires have occurred nearby and have burned through similar vegetation as present in the Park.
Conditions that would support the spread of a wildfire in the Park occur after the annual grass and herbaceous plants have cured, generally in the late spring and persisting until the area receives significant rainfall in the fall.
During drought years, the time of year available for wildfire to spread lengthens.
5.2 Insects
Red Turpentine Beetle
Red turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens) is a bark beetle that attacks several species of pine trees, including Monterey pine. Red turpentine beetles attack trees by tunneling into the inner bark of the tree where they then mate and lay eggs, and the offspring feed on tree as well. Red turpentine beetles occasionally kill Monterey pine trees; more commonly, the beetle attacks trees that are already stressed or in poor health and so are at an increased risk of dying (Owen 2003).
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 28 JULY 2022
Pine trees infested with red turpentine beetles are identifiable by the pitch tubes, which are piles of pink and white granular material present on the lower half of the trunk. Beetle infestations are assessed by looking at the overall tree health and the number of fresh or active pitch tubes on the trunk. Old pitch tubes, ones that are yellow or brown, are a sign of a successful resistance to the attack by the tree and are not a concern.
Evidence of red turpentine beetle infestation was observed on 20 (15%) pine trees during the inventory, with Zone 2 having the most frequent occurrence of infestations. Of the trees that were observed to be infested, 15% appeared to be heavily infested. Red turpentine beetle does not infest coast live oak.
Red turpentine beetles are also a vector for Pitch Canker disease, described below.
5.3 Disease
Dwarf Mistletoe
Dwarf mistletoe is a small, leafless plant that parasitizes the stems of pine trees, extracting water and nutrients from the host tree. Dwarf mistletoe suppresses growth and reduces vigor in infected trees, and can kill pine trees outright. Mortality from mistletoe is more common in younger trees than mature trees; however, infected mature trees rarely overcome the parasite (Sinclair and Lyon 2005).
Pine trees infested with mistletoe are identifiable by the yellowish aerial shoots growing out the branches in the tree crowns and on the tree trunk. Other signs are swellings on the small, infected branches and branch dieback.
Many of the pines infected with mistletoe in the Park have aerial shoots growing out of the trunk near ground level.
Evidence of dwarf mistletoe infection was observed on 20 (15%) pine trees during the inventory, with Zone 3 having the greatest number of infected trees. Dwarf mistletoe infestation is limited to the Monterey pine trees and does not infect coast live oak.
Pitch Canker
Pitch Canker is fungal disease that infects several species of pine trees in California. The disease was first identified in native Monterey pine forests in the mid-1980s, where it quickly spread. Pitch Canker infections attack trees by creating cankers around the circumference of branches and stems, girdling them, and ultimately leading to dieback in the portions of the tree above the canker. Monterey pines have varying levels of susceptibility to the disease, with some trees being seriously harmed or killed while others can persist. Because Pitch Canker has been present in the area for more than 30 years, it is likely that the most susceptible trees in the Park have already succumbed to the disease, and the remaining pines have some degree of resistance (Sinclair and Lyon 2005). The California State Board of Forestry has designated a zone of Pitch Canker infestation that includes most of coastal California including the area the park is located in (UC IPM 2021).
Pitch Canker disease is identifiable by the large swollen areas (the canker) on the trunk and branches, plus the copious amount of pitch that is exuded by the canker. Brown needles and dieback in the branch tips are other signs of an infection.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 29 JULY 2022
Evidence of Pitch Canker infection was observed on 8 (6%) pine trees during the inventory, with Zones 2 and 4 having the greatest number of infected trees. Pitch Canker disease is limited to species of pine, and does not infect coast live oak trees.
5.4 Invasive Plants
Grasses
The surface vegetation within the forested zones of the Park is dominated by several species of non-native, invasive annual grasses, including rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), and panic veldt grass (Ehrharta erecta). These grasses have formed a continuous and dense layer of surface vegetation that outcompetes pine and oak seedlings for space and resources. The dense layer of grass also inhibits the germination of seedlings. These are annual grasses whose stems go dormant and dry out during the summer, creating a large volume of flammable vegetation.
Non-native grasses are easily identified during the summer months by their yellowish-brown stems and their abundance on the forest floor. Non-native grasses were observed at all 14 measurement plots and generally covered 75% or more of the forest surface.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 30 JULY 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PGCC 9-6-2023
13676 31 JULY 2022
6 Management and Maintenance
Recommendations for Promoting
Forest Health and Minimizing Risk
Over the Next 5 Years
Management activities within the forested areas of the Park are divided into two categories: management actions for reducing flammable vegetation and management actions for improving forest health/restoring a healthy distribution of pine tree age classes/improving tree regeneration. A description of trail management activities is also provided in this section.
6.1 Fire Hazard Reduction
Fire hazard reduction activities will be conducted within 100 feet of the homes surrounding the Park. The management area is “U”-shaped and generally forms a 30- to 40-foot-wide strip around the perimeter of the Park, beginning on the east side of the Park at Gibson Avenue, wrapping around the north end of the Park, and ending on the west side of the Park near the intersections of 17 Mile Drive and Melrose Drive. The width of the strip widens to 100 feet at the northwest corner of the Park where there is a strip of homes that back up to the Park boundary (Figure 4). Within this strip, vegetation management actions will be performed that adhere to CAL FIRE’s defensible space requirements. These include the following:
▪ Cutting or mowing tall annual grasses and annual herbaceous vegetation to 4 inches in height or less ▪ Removing dead trees and woody shrubs
▪ Removing fallen dead trees and tree parts that are 6 inches in diameter or smaller ▪ Cutting up and scattering fallen dead trees or tree parts larger than 6 inches in diameter ▪ Trimming off lower branches on mature trees to create 10 feet of space between the ground and lower branches ▪ Removing shrubs, bushes, and thickets within the dripline of a mature tree Some small oak tree removal is recommended to improve horizontal spacing.
The condition of the vegetation within 100 feet of the adjacent homes should be evaluated on an annual basis.
Mowing annual grasses will be needed yearly; however, other activities will be needed on an as-needed basis. Fire hazard reduction activities should be performed in the later spring/early summer, preferably after the annual vegetation has started to cure but before the hottest and driest times of the year.
PGCC 9-6-2023
GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK / FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
13676 32 JULY 2022
6.2 Forest Restoration
Forest restoration activities will be conducted in the interior of the Park, on the inside on the fire hazard reduction zone (Figure 5). The management area is composed of two rectangles divided by Pine Street. The rectangles are approximately 300 feet wide. Within this area, management activities will be focused on creating conditions favorable for tree regeneration. Treatment actions will be performed on 12 to 16 plots, each with a radius of 60 feet (0.25-acre plot). Treatment sites will be selected based on the surface vegetation, crown closure, and the availability of nearby mature trees to serve as seed sources. The ideal site will have predominantly grass or annual vegetation on the surface, a canopy with less than 50% closure, and several mature pine and oak trees nearby.
Treatment sites will be separated from each other by at least 100 feet. Figure 6 shows the recommended reforestation and tree planting sites (Figure 6). Treatment actions include the following:
▪ Felling dead and dying overstory trees
▪ Removing concentrations of dead and down logs (individual logs can remain); removal off site is an option, or logs can be cut up and scattered on site
▪ Mowing grass and herbaceous cover and removing understory woody surface vegetation ▪ Raking and removing/reducing the pine needle and leaf litter layer to expose mineral soil All of the reforestation actions described above will be performed on the initial treatment on each plot to prepare the site for tree planting or to allow natural regeneration from nearby mature trees. The site preparation work will be done in the late spring/early summer to have the site ready for cone and acorn drop later in the year. Tree plantings can be used on sites that may be ideal for pine or oak regeneration but lack a seed source, or if the City desires to improve the odds of successful regeneration. Tree plantings should take place January through March when the soil is moist. Twenty-five to 50 trees planted at each site is ideal (MacLaren 1993); it is acceptable to plant fewer trees at each site, but more than the recommended amount will likely result in overcrowding.
Follow up treatments will consist of annual weed whacking/mowing and supplemental water during unusually dry or hot weather. Deer cages, fences, or other protective measures may be needed to protect new trees from grazing.
Section 6.4 of this FMP provides general timetables for completing the recommended management actions throughout the year and over a period of 5 years.
PGCC 9-6-2023