Agenda packet — Pacific Grove City Council, February 19, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 22
Biological Resources Report
and other trees or large shrubs; standing dead Monterey pine snags; understory shrubs and thickets of California blackberry or poison oak; and in piles of woody debris or clumps of grass. Raptors would most likely utilize the taller Monterey pines or standing dead Monterey pine snags for nesting sites. White-tailed kite, which has been observed in GWP (Dudek, 2022; eBird, 2021), could potentially utilize tall Monterey pines as nesting sites. Avian surveys performed by DD&A found abundant songbird activity throughout all areas of GWP (see Appendix E), with some displays of nesting behavior and observations of juvenile birds.

No nesting raptors were observed, although red shouldered hawk and red-tailed hawk were observed during avian surveys and a great horned owl was noted during night bat survey work. Project activities performed during the breeding and nesting seasons could impact raptors or other nesting birds through the nest abandonment or the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings.

3.4.2 Special-Status Plant Species
Monterey Pine
Monterey pine is a CNPS CRPR 1B species. This evergreen tree occurs in closed-cone coniferous forests at elevations from 25-185 meters. Only four native stands of this species exist in the world. One stand is found on Guadalupe Island off Baja California. The other three stands are all within California at Año Nuevo, Cambria, and the Monterey Peninsula. Monterey pines are introduced in many areas, including in New Zealand where it is used as a plantation crop. Only one-half of the species' historical extent remains undeveloped on the Monterey Peninsula. Monterey pines are threatened by development, genetic contamination, pine pitch canker disease, and forest fragmentation, especially in the Del Monte Forest on the Monterey Peninsula.

As described above, Monterey pine forest characterizes GWP and this species is found throughout the park.

According to data collected for the FMP, 32 percent of the trees within the forest in GWP consist of Monterey pine and are represented across all size classes measured between 3 inches to >32 inches diameter. The park also lies within the Monterey pine CNDDB Occurrence #4, which corresponds to the approximate native range of the species in the Monterey Peninsula area (CDFW 2024b). Forest management activities are designed to benefit Monterey pine and the project does not propose to remove healthy non-hazard Monterey pines nor substantially affect the critical root zone of individual trees.

However, Monterey pines could potentially be impacted during forest management activities if individual Monterey pine seedlings, saplings, or mature trees are accidentally damaged or killed.

Yadon’s Piperia
Yadon’s piperia is a federally endangered, CNPS CRPR 1B species. This perennial herb in the Orchidaceae family blooms from May to August and is found in closed-cone coniferous forest, maritime chaparral on sandy soils, and coastal bluff scrub at elevations from 10-510 meters. Overall, this species favors a welldrained, sandy soil substrate with podzolic conditions, and areas that retain moisture during the rainy season but are not subject to inundation (V.Yadon in litt. 2002). As in some other plant taxa, individual orchids that flower in one year may not have the necessary energy reserves to flower in the following year. As a result, an unknown proportion of a population may be dormant in any given year, thus making it difficult to track population dynamics through monitoring of population size (Wells 1991, Rasmussen 1995, A.

Graff in litt. 2002). However, it would be expected that some percentage of a resident population would flower in any given year. As a result, while it may be difficult to track population dynamics in any given year, determining presence or absence for a specific area is not.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 159 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 23
Biological Resources Report
Yadon’s piperia is known from GWP and is included as a non-specific occurrence in the CNDDB (Occurrence #4), which includes the entire park and lacks any specific data (CDFW, 2024b). Following the wet winter of 2022/23, Yadon’s piperia was observed in GWP near on a gentle, southwest-facing slope in the southern portion of Zone 3. These plants were flagged and protected with deer browse cages by a citizen.

During 2024 botanical surveys, DD&A confirmed the location of the plants marked during 2023 but did not discover additional occurrences of Yadon’s piperia. DD&A counted 16 Yadon’s piperia based on the presence of basal leaves on February 29, 2024, and verified six blooming Yadon’s piperia on July 10, 2024 (Figure 3). Project activities have the potential to impact Yadon’s piperia by trampling, cutting, or removal of individual plants.

3.5 Sensitive Habitats
Monterey Pine Forest & Habitat for Special Status Species Monterey pine forest is considered sensitive under CDFW’s California Natural Communities List (CDFW, 2024c). It also supports potential overwintering habitat for Monarch butterfly, a population of Yadon’s piperia, habitat for California legless lizard, and habitat for bats, including Western red bat, a California Species of Special Concern. Approximately 15.5 acres of Monterey pine forest is present within the survey area. One of the primary purposes of the project is to improve the Monterey pine forest habitat and the project does not propose removing any healthy non-hazard trees or substantially affecting the critical root zones of individual trees. However, Monterey pine forest could potentially be impacted if an accident during project activities were to result in the release of hazardous materialsfrom equipment or result in the removal or death of Monterey pine seedlings, saplings, or larger trees.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

No potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or State were identified within the survey area and the two paired sample locations did not meet the wetland parameters as defined by the ACOE 1987 Manual or the Supplement. All three wetland parameters of vegetation, soil, and hydrology must be met for a resource to be potentially under the jurisdiction of ACOE. Although the topographic low area where the two paired samples were located may seasonally retain runoff and promote growth of some facultative wetland plant species, such as common velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), perennial ryegrass, field sedge (Carex praegracilis), and California blackberry, there is not sufficient hydrology present to support potentially jurisdictional wetlands or waters and none of the wetland indicators for vegetation, soils, or hydrology were met. This finding is also supported by the visual assessment of the site as well as data from the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS, 2024b) and soil survey maps (USDA, 2024), which do not map wetlands or hydric soil units at the site. Therefore, the project does not have potential to impact wetlands or waters of the U.S. Wetland data sheets are provided as Appendix H and sample locations are shown on Figure 3.

3.6 Protected Trees
The City ordinances pertaining to protected trees at GWP are summarized in Section 2.7.3. The majority of trees in GWP occur inside of or within 100 yards of the designated monarch butterfly sanctuary and therefore are protected as monarch butterfly habitat trees. The remaining trees in GWP are protected because they are trees on public property. The City would not be required to issue itself a permit for removal of protected trees as part of an approved forest management plan, but would be required to adhere to the restrictions on removals of trees inside of and within 100 yards of a designated monarch butterfly sanctuary.

This would limit tree removal to those recommended for removal by the Monarch Sanctuary Habitat PGCC 2-19-25

Page 160 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 24
Biological Resources Report
Management Plan (Creekside Science, 2011) or those approved by city council for proper maintenance of the site, or for public health, safety, or welfare.

3.7 Habitat Connectivity and Nursery Sites
The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] and CDFW, 2020) identifies large remaining blocks of intact habitat or natural landscape and models linkages between them to provide a basis for management of these important areas, particularly as corridors for wildlife. The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project does not identify the project site as containing a modeled essential connectivity area. GWP does contain potential nursery sites for nesting raptors and other avian species, multiple species of bats, and the historic Monarch butterfly overwintering site. The project has the potential to impact nursery sites for avian species, bats, and Monarch butterfly as described in the above sections.

4.0 IMPACT THRESHOLDS
The following section describes potential impacts to sensitive biological resources that may result from the project. In accordance with Appendix G of CEQA Guidelines, an impact is considered to be significant and require mitigation if it would result in any of the following:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service); b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or the Service; c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means;
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites;
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Recommendations are included in the next section to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 161 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 25
Biological Resources Report

5.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The Project has the potential to impact several special-status wildlife and plant species, sensitive Monterey pine forest habitat, as well as nesting raptors and other avian species. Mitigation measures that reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level in accordance with CEQA are provided below.

Special Status Species
Potential Impact 1: The project site provides potential nesting habitat for raptors and birds listed by the MBTA and protected by CDFG Code. The project site contains suitable nesting habitat for both ground and tree-nesting species. Project activities during the breeding and nesting seasons could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment within the survey area.

Implementation of BIO-1 will reduce the potential for impacts to nesting raptors and other protected avian species.

BIO 1: Project activities that may directly (e.g., vegetation removal and trimming, tree removal, removal of standing dead trees or snags) or indirectly affect (e.g., noise) nesting raptors and other protected avian species shall be timed to avoid the breeding and nesting seasons (February 1 through September 15).

If project activities must occur during the breeding and nesting season (February 1 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-activity surveys for nesting raptors and other protected avian species within 300 feet of the proposed work area. Pre-activity surveys should be conducted no more than seven days prior to the start of work during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August).

If raptors or other protected avian nests are identified during the pre-activity surveys, the qualified biologist shall notify the project proponent and an appropriate no-disturbance buffer shall be imposed within which no project activities or disturbance would take place until the young of the year have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, as determined by a qualified biologist.

When possible, leave snags in place and remove only the tops of dead trees to retain habitat for cavity nesting birds.

Potential Impact 2: The project site provides suitable habitat for special-status bat species. Suitable foraging and night roost habitat as well as day, colonial, or maternal roost habitat for these species is present within the project site. Project activities, including vegetation removal, tree removal or trimming, or removal of standing dead trees or snags, may result in direct and indirect impacts to these species if these species are using the site for day, night, or maternity roosts. Direct impacts include mortality of individuals or roost disturbance, while indirect impacts include loss of habitat. This is a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measure recommended below.

BIO 2: To the extent practical limbing/tree removal operations should occur between September 1 and November 1 to avoid bat maternity roosts and winter hibernacula. When possible, leave snags in place and remove only the tops of dead trees to retain habitat for bats. If tree limbing/tree removal operations must occur outside the period of September 1 through November 1, a survey for bats shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to initiation of the work as follows:

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 162 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 26
Biological Resources Report
i. The biologist shall determine if bats are utilizing the site for roosting. For any trees/snags/buildings that could provide roosting space for cavity or foliage‐roosting bats, potential bat roost features shall be thoroughly evaluated to determine if bats are present. Visual inspection and/or acoustic surveys shall be utilized as initial techniques. ii. If roosting bats are found, the biologist shall develop and implement passive exclusion methods. If feasible, exclusion shall take place during the appropriate windows (September 1 and November 1) to avoid harming bat maternity roosts and/or winter hibernacula. iii. If established maternity colonies are found, the maternity colony shall not be disturbed and a buffer shall be established around the colony to protect pre‐volant young from construction disturbances until the young can fly.
iv. If a tree is determined not to be an active roost site for roosting bats, it may be immediately limbed or removed as follows:
a. If foliage roosting bats are determined to be present, limbs shall be lowered, inspected for bats by a bat biologist, and chipped immediately or moved to a dump site if necessary.
b. Alternately, limbs may be lowered and left on the ground until the following day, when they can be chipped or moved to a dump site, if necessary. No logs or tree sections shall be dropped on downed limbs or limb piles that have not been in place since the previous day.

Potential Impact 3: GWP is a known historic overwintering site for monarch butterfly, a species of local and regional importance and a proposed species for listing under FESA. The proposed reforestation activities are designed to enhance the Monterey pine forest habitat and improve conditions within GWP for overwintering monarch butterflies and no removals of healthy trees, except for some limited thinning of coast live oak, is proposed. GWP is also a designated monarch butterfly sanctuary, is monitored annually by the City’s monarch butterfly consultant, is protected by the City municipal tree ordinances that limits tree removal inside of and within 100 yards of designated monarch butterfly sanctuaries, and prohibits tree removal within designated monarch butterfly sanctuaries between the months of October through April unless deemed necessary by the city arborist and confirmed by the public works director for public health, safety, or welfare. However, project activities such as removal of woody understory vegetation for fire hazard reduction or tree removals deemed necessary by the City could impact overwintering monarch butterflies. If monarch butterfly is listed as threatened or endangered by the Service, impacts would constitute take of a species covered by FESA. This is a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measure recommended below.

BIO 3a: Adhere to the municipal ordinances (chapter 12.20.040) that limit tree removal inside of and within 100 yards of designated monarch butterfly sanctuaries and prohibit tree removal in these same areas during the months of October through April.

BIO 3b: If tree removal or other vegetation management is deemed necessary by the City during the monarch butterfly overwintering season (October through April), pre-activity surveys shall be performed no more than seven days prior to initiation of work to confirm absence of clustering monarch PGCC 2-19-25

Page 163 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 27
Biological Resources Report
butterflies. Surveys shall be performed in the early morning when temperatures are below 55° F in calm conditions that are favorable to clustering of monarch butterflies. Surveys shall not be performed during periods of high winds and/or precipitation. If clustering Monarch butterflies are present, no forest management activities, with the exception of planting or maintenance of forest restoration plantings, shall be allowed to proceed within 100 yards of the clustering site and may only be performed in the period outside of the overwintering season (May 1 – September 30).

Potential Impact 4: Monterey pine a CNPS CRPR 1B species, naturally occurs throughout the project site and is within its native range. Although forest management activities are designed to benefit Monterey pine, healthy seedlings, saplings, or mature trees could potentially be impacted or killed by accidental trimming, trampling, or removal. This is a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measure recommended below.

BIO 4a: Vegetation management activities shall avoid areas where Monterey pine seedlings are naturally regenerating, avoid reforestation plantings of Monterey pine and refrain from removing or damaging Monterey pines. Prior to initiating work, sensitive reforestation and/or areas of Monterey pine regeneration shall be marked for avoidance using colored flagging by a qualified biologist, forester, or arborist. Healthy Monterey pines shall not be removed, unless deemed necessary by the City for public safety or as specified by the FMP and/or Monarch sanctuary habitat management plan or other documents approved by city council. If Monterey pines are removed or killed as a result of project activities, they shall be replaced in appropriate areas of GWP at a minimum 1:1 ratio as part of the forest restoration component of the proposed project.

Potential Impact 5: Yadon’s piperia, a federally endangered and CNPS CRPR 1B species, is known to occur within the project site. Project activities may result in impacts to individual plants as a result of trampling, cutting, or removal. This is a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measure recommended below.

BIO-5a: Each year when forest management activities are planned within suitable habitat (Zones 2 – 4), the proposed work areas shall be surveyed for Yadon’s piperia prior to initiation of the work.

Surveys shall be performed during the appropriate time of year when Yadon’s piperia can be detected.

BIO-5b: To avoid impacts to the known Yadon’s piperia occurrence and any other occurrence detected during surveys specified by BIO-5a, no fire hazard reduction or forest restoration activities shall be performed within a 50-foot buffer any identified Yadon’s piperia occurrences. A biological monitor will supervise the installation of protective fencing or flagging around a 50-foot buffer whenever project activities occur within 150 feet of the occurrence. If grazing animals are utilized for vegetation management, the biological monitor shall supervise installation of an electric or other exclusionary fence around a 50-foot buffer of the occurrence. The site will be monitored at least once per week until project activities within 150 feet of the occurrence are complete to ensure that the protective fencing remains intact. Protective fencing/flagging shall be removed after project activities are completed.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 164 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 28
Biological Resources Report
Sensitive Habitats
Potential Impact 6: The Monterey pine forest vegetation alliance is identified as sensitive on CDFW’s California Natural Communities List (CDFW, 2024a) and provides habitat for the special status species discussed above. Vegetation management and restoration activities will have a beneficial impact on this sensitive habitat. However, unauthorized impacts to Monterey pine forest could occur if an accident during project activities were to result in the release of hazardous materialsfrom equipment or result in the removal or death of Monterey pine seedlings, saplings, or larger trees. This is a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of BIO 4a and the mitigation measures recommended below.

BIO 6a: All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur outside of the Monterey pine forest habitat and shall be properly contained.

BIO 6b: Only lightweight, limited access equipment shall be allowed within the Monterey pine forest habitat that overlaps with the 100-foot fuel reduction buffer zone along the perimeter of GWP and along the existing trail system. All other work within interior areas of the Monterey pine forest within Zones 2 – 4 shall be performed on foot using hand tools, including activities associated with managed grazing.

BIO 6c: Living native vegetation shall only be cut when absolutely necessary for fire hazard reduction and only as prescribed by the FMP and/or Monarch sanctuary habitat management plan or other documents approved by city council. Native vegetation that needs to be trimmed as part of fire hazard reduction shall be cut at ground level rather than removed by the roots.

BIO-6d: All invasive non-native plants that are removed during forest management and restoration work shall be bagged or otherwise contained and off hauled to the municipal landfill for proper disposal.

Wildlife Migratory Corridors and Nursery Sites
Potential Impact 7: Project activities will not impact wildlife migratory corridors linkages but fire hazard reduction and invasive plant species removal may temporarily impede the use of nursery sites by removing understory vegetation, woody debris, dead trees and/or snags that could be utilized by nesting avian species or bats. However, vegetation management and fire hazard reduction would be limited to the 100-foot buffer zone and invasive plant species removal would occur in only localized areas, leaving adjacent habitat intact.

After fire hazard reduction and invasive plant removal activities, native vegetation will likely regrow.

Potential impacts to avian and bat nursery sites will be avoided through implementation of BIO-1 and BIO2. Forest restoration activities performed as part of the proposed project will improve conditions for overwintering Monarch butterflies and all of GWP, including the historic Monarch butterfly overwintering site, will be protected via the City’s tree protection ordinance that applies to designated Monarch butterfly sanctuaries. Therefore, the mitigation outlined above reduces potential impacts to a less-than-significant level and no further mitigation is required.

Local Policies and Ordinances
The project does not conflict with any local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. The project will adhere to the City of Pacific Grove municipal tree protection ordinances, which include protection of trees inside of and within 100 yards of designated monarch butterfly sanctuaries, including GWP. No further mitigation is required.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 165 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 29
Biological Resources Report
Conservation Plans
The project does not conflict with any provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

6.0 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B. G, et al. 2012. The Jepson Manual – Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 1600 pp.

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

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.

City of Pacific Grove. 1999. Master plan for George Washington Park. Prepared by Natural Resources Committee and City Forester Frank Ono, Pacific Grove, CA.

CDFW. 2024a. California Natural Communities List. Available online at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/List CDFW. 2024b. California Natural Diversity Database Rare Find Report. Accessed May 2024.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and CDFW. 2020. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving Connected California. Available online at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/connectivity/CEHC California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2024. The Cal-IPC Inventory. Available online at https://www.cal-ipc.org/
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Botanical Survey Guidelines.

CNPS. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v-9.5). Available online at https://rareplants.cnps.org/
Creekside Science. 2011. Management Plan for Monarch Grove Sanctuary, Site Assessment and Initial Recommendations. Prepared for the City of Pacific Grove, California.

Creekside Science. 2023. Assessment and Proposed Management Activities, Monarch Grove Sanctuary and George Washington Park 2023. Prepared for the City of Pacific Grove, California.

Dudek. 2022. Forest management plan, George Washington Park. Prepared for City of Pacific Grove, CA. eBird. 2021. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org.

Griggs, F.T. 2009. California Riparian Habitat Restoration Handbook. 2nd Edition. http://riverpartners.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/restoration-handbook.pdf.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 166 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 30
Biological Resources Report
Hatfield, R., S. Colla, S. Jepsen, L. Richardson, R. Thorp, and S. F. Jordan. 2014. IUCN assessments for North American Bombus spp. Technical report for the North American IUCN Bumble Bee Specialist Group. Assessments completed 2014, document updated in February 2015. 56 pp.

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

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

Holland, D. C. 1994. The Western Pond Turtle: Habitat and History. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon
Howitt, B.F. and J.T. Howell. 1964. The vascular plants of Monterey County, California.

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

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

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

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

Proceedings form Management of Amphibians, Reptiles and Small Mammals in North America Symposium.

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

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

Jepson Flora Project. 2022. Jepson Online Interchange for California floristics. Available online at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html
Koch J.B, J.P. Strange, and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble Bees of the Western United States. Available online at:
https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/documents/BumbleBeeGuideWestern2012.pdf Matthews, M.A. and M. Mitchell. 2015. The Plants of Monterey County, an Illustrated Field Key; Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California. 446 pp.

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

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

Ralph, J.C., Geupel, G.R., Pyle, P., Martin, T.E., and DeSante D.F. 1993. Handbook of Field Methods for Monitoring Landbirds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-144-www.

Albany, CA.

Ralph, J.C., Droege, S., and Sauer, J.R. 1995. Managing and Monitoring Birds Using Point Counts – Standards and Applications. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149.

Albany, CA
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 167 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 31
Biological Resources Report
Rathbun, G. B., N. Siepel, and D. Holland. 1992. Nesting Behavior and Movements of Western Pond Turtles, Clemmys marmorata. Southwestern Naturalist 37:319-324.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomson, R.C., A.N. Wright, and H.B. Shaffer. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. University of California Press, Oakland, CA. Co-published with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 390 pp.

Thorp R.W., D.S. Horning, L.L. Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and Cuckoo bumble bees of California (Hymenoptera: Apidae) University of California Press; Berkley, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey. Available Online at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the California Red-legged Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 61(101). pp. 25813-25833.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2023. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register, Vol. 88 (122). pp. 41560-41585.

Rasmussen, H.N. 1995. Terrestrial Orchids from Seed to Mycotrophic Plant. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Service. 2024a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Resources List for the Project Site.

Service. 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. Accessed January 2024. Available Online at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2022. National Hydrography Dataset.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 168 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 32
Biological Resources Report
Wells, T.C. and Willems J.H., eds. 1991. Population Ecology of Terrestrial Orchids. SPB Academic, The Hague, Netherlands.

Williams, D. 1986. Mammalian species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Report 86-1. 112 pp.

Williams, P., R. Thorp, L. Richardson, and S. Colla. 2014. Bumble Bees of North America: An Identification Guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 209 pp.

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for Food Safety. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus franklini), Suckley cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi), and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Available online at: https://www.xerces.org/publications Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1988. California’s wildlife, Volume I: Amphibians and reptiles. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California.272 pp.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume II: Birds. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California.731 pp PGCC 2-19-25

Page 169 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates

APPENDIX A
California Natural Diversity Database Report
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 170 ends

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Actinemys pallida
southwestern pond turtle
ARAAD02032 Proposed
Threatened
None G2G3 SNR SSC
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC
Allium hickmanii
Hickman's onion
PMLIL02140 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Aphyllon robbinsii
Robbins' broomrape
PDORO040Q0 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos edmundsii
Little Sur manzanita
PDERI04260 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri
Hooker's manzanita
PDERI040J1 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Arctostaphylos montereyensis
Toro manzanita
PDERI040R0 None None G2? S2? 1B.2
Arctostaphylos pajaroensis
Pajaro manzanita
PDERI04100 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos pumila
sandmat manzanita
PDERI04180 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Astragalus tener var. titi
coastal dunes milk-vetch
PDFAB0F8R2 Endangered Endangered G2T1 S1 1B.1
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010 None Candidate
Endangered
G4 S2 SSC
Bombus caliginosus
obscure bumble bee
IIHYM24380 None None G2G3 S1S2
Bombus occidentalis
western bumble bee
IIHYM24252 None Candidate
Endangered
G3 S1
Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
ABNKC19120 None None G4 S3S4 WL
Castilleja ambigua var. insalutata
pink Johnny-nip
PDSCR0D403 None None G5T2 S2 1B.1
Central Dune Scrub
Central Dune Scrub
CTT21320CA None None G2 S2.2
Central Maritime Chaparral
Central Maritime Chaparral
CTT37C20CA None None G2 S2.2
Quad IS (Monterey (3612158) OR Marina (3612167) OR Seaside (3612157) OR Mt. Carmel (3612147) OR Soberanes Point (3612148))
Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Monday, November 25, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated November, 1 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 5 Information Expires 5/1/2025
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 171 ends

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii
Congdon's tarplant
PDAST4R0P1 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
western snowy plover
ABNNB03031 Threatened None G3T3 S3 SSC
Chorizanthe minutiflora
Fort Ord spineflower
PDPGN04100 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens
Monterey spineflower
PDPGN040M2 Threatened None G2T2 S2 1B.2
Clarkia jolonensis
Jolon clarkia
PDONA050L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Coelus globosus
globose dune beetle
IICOL4A010 None None G1G2 S1S2
Collinsia multicolor
San Francisco collinsia
PDSCR0H0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis
seaside bird's-beak
PDSCR0J0P2 None Endangered G5T2 S2 1B.1
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
AMACC08010 None None G4 S2 SSC
Coturnicops noveboracensis
yellow rail
ABNME01010 None None G4 S2 SSC
Cypseloides niger
black swift
ABNUA01010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1
monarch - California overwintering population
IILEPP2012 Candidate None G4T1T2Q S2
Delphinium californicum ssp. interius
Hospital Canyon larkspur
PDRAN0B0A2 None None G3T3 S3 1B.2
Delphinium hutchinsoniae
Hutchinson's larkspur
PDRAN0B0V0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
ABPAT02011 None None G5T4Q S4 WL
Ericameria fasciculata
Eastwood's goldenbush
PDAST3L080 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Eriogonum nortonii
Pinnacles buckwheat
PDPGN08470 None None G2 S2 1B.3
Eryngium montereyense
Fort Ord button-celery
PDAPI0Z150 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Erysimum ammophilum
sand-loving wallflower
PDBRA16010 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Erysimum menziesii
Menzies' wallflower
PDBRA160R0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Eucyclogobius newberryi
tidewater goby
AFCQN04010 Endangered None G3 S3 SSC
Report Printed on Monday, November 25, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated November, 1 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 5 Information Expires 5/1/2025
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 172 ends

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Eumetopias jubatus
Steller sea lion
AMAJC03010 Delisted None G3 S2
Euphilotes enoptes smithi
Smith's blue butterfly
IILEPG2026 Endangered None G5T2 S2
Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary
PMLIL0V0C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria
Monterey gilia
PDPLM041P2 Endangered Threatened G3G4T2 S2 1B.2
Hesperocyparis goveniana
Gowen cypress
PGCUP04031 Threatened None G1 S1 1B.2
Hesperocyparis macrocarpa
Monterey cypress
PGCUP04060 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea
Kellogg's horkelia
PDROS0W043 None None G4T1? S1? 1B.1
Horkelia marinensis
Point Reyes horkelia
PDROS0W0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Hydrobates homochroa
ashy storm-petrel
ABNDC04030 None None G2 S2 SSC
Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
PDAST5L040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
ABNME03041 None Threatened G3T1 S2 FP
Lavinia exilicauda harengus
Monterey hitch
AFCJB19013 None None G4T3 S3 SSC
Layia carnosa
beach layia
PDAST5N010 Threatened Endangered G2 S2 1B.1
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
Lupinus tidestromii
Tidestrom's lupine
PDFAB2B3Y0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Malacothamnus involucratus
Carmel Valley bushmallow
PDMAL0Q0B1 None None G3T2Q S2 1B.2
Malacothrix saxatilis var. arachnoidea
Carmel Valley malacothrix
PDAST660C2 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
Microseris paludosa
marsh microseris
PDAST6E0D0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Microtus californicus halophilus
Monterey vole
AMAFF11036 None None G5T1 S2
Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens
northern curly-leaved monardella
PDLAM18162 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Report Printed on Monday, November 25, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated November, 1 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 5 Information Expires 5/1/2025
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 173 ends

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Monolopia gracilens
woodland woollythreads
PDAST6G010 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Monterey Cypress Forest
Monterey Cypress Forest
CTT83150CA None None G1 S1.2
Monterey Pine Forest
Monterey Pine Forest
CTT83130CA None None G1 S1.1
Monterey Pygmy Cypress Forest
Monterey Pygmy Cypress Forest
CTT83162CA None None G1 S1.1
Northern Bishop Pine Forest
Northern Bishop Pine Forest
CTT83121CA None None G2 S2.2
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
CTT52110CA None None G3 S3.2
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9
steelhead - south-central California coast DPS
AFCHA0209H Threatened None G5T2Q S2 SSC
Pelecanus occidentalis californicus
California brown pelican
ABNFC01021 Delisted Delisted G4T3T4 S3
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
ARACF12100 None None G4 S4 SSC
Pinus radiata
Monterey pine
PGPIN040V0 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Piperia yadonii
Yadon's rein orchid
PMORC1X070 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Plagiobothrys uncinatus
hooked popcornflower
PDBOR0V170 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Potentilla hickmanii
Hickman's cinquefoil
PDROS1B370 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Ramalina thrausta
angel's hair lichen
NLLEC3S340 None None G5? S2S3 2B.1
Rana boylii pop. 6
foothill yellow-legged frog - south coast DPS
AAABH01056 Endangered Endangered G3T1 S1
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC
Reithrodontomys megalotis distichlis
Salinas harvest mouse
AMAFF02032 None None G5T1 S2
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
ABPAU08010 None Threatened G5 S3
Rosa pinetorum
pine rose
PDROS1J0W0 None None G1Q S1 1B.2
Sidalcea malachroides
maple-leaved checkerbloom
PDMAL110E0 None None G3 S3 4.2
Sorex ornatus salarius
Monterey shrew
AMABA01105 None None G5T1T2 S1S2 SSC
Report Printed on Monday, November 25, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated November, 1 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 5 Information Expires 5/1/2025
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 174 ends

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Stebbinsoseris decipiens
Santa Cruz microseris
PDAST6E050 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Sulcaria spiralifera
twisted horsehair lichen
NLT0042560 None None G3G4 S2 1B.2
Taricha torosa
Coast Range newt
AAAAF02032 None None G4 S4 SSC
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Tortula californica
California screw moss
NBMUS7L090 None None G2G3 S2? 1B.2
Trifolium buckwestiorum
Santa Cruz clover
PDFAB402W0 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Trifolium hydrophilum
saline clover
PDFAB400R5 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Trifolium polyodon
Pacific Grove clover
PDFAB402H0 None Rare G1 S1 1B.1
Trifolium trichocalyx
Monterey clover
PDFAB402J0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
CTT42110CA None None G3 S3.1
Record Count: 92
Report Printed on Monday, November 25, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated November, 1 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 5 Information Expires 5/1/2025
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 175 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates

APPENDIX B
IPaC Resource List
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 176 ends

IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly a�ected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of e�ects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-speci�c (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-speci�c (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS o�ce(s) with jurisdiction in the de�ned project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Monterey County, California
Local o�ce
Ventura Fish And Wildlife O�ce
 (805) 644-1766
 (805) 644-3958
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 1 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 177 ends

 [email protected]
2493 Portola Road, Suite B
Ventura, CA 93003-7726
https://www.fws.gov/Ventura
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 2 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 178 ends

Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of in�uence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly a�ected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a �sh population even if that �sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water �ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential e�ects to species, additional site-speci�c and project-speci�c information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local o�ce and a species list which ful�lls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an o�cial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local �eld o�ce directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an o�cial species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the �sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an 1 2
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 3 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 179 ends

o�ce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially a�ected by activities in this location:

Birds
Amphibians

NAME STATUS
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193
Endangered
California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browni
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8104
Endangered
Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus
Wherever found
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945
Endangered
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467
Threatened
Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035
Threatened
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Threatened

NAME STATUS
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 4 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 180 ends

Fishes
Insects
Crustaceans
California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii
Wherever found
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891
Threatened
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius newberryi
Wherever found
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/57
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butter�y Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Smith's Blue Butter�y Euphilotes enoptes smithi
Wherever found
There is proposed critical habitat for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4418
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 5 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 181 ends

Flowering Plants

NAME STATUS
Clover (tidestrom''s) Lupine Lupinus tidestromii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4459
Endangered
Coastal Dunes Milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. titi
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7675
Endangered
Hickman's Potentilla Potentilla hickmanii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6343
Endangered
Marsh Sandwort Arenaria paludicola
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2229
Endangered
Monterey Clover Trifolium trichocalyx
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4282
Endangered
Monterey Gilia Gilia tenui�ora ssp. arenaria
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/856
Endangered
Monterey Spine�ower Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens
Wherever found
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/396
Threatened
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 6 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 182 ends

Conifers and Cycads
Critical habitats
Potential e�ects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have e�ects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles
Yadon's Piperia Piperia yadonii
Wherever found
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4205
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Gowen Cypress Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8548
Threatened
Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Speci�cally, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management 1 2
3 IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 7 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 183 ends

There are bald and/or golden eagles in your project area.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", speci�cally the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey e�ort (see below) can be used to establish a level of con�dence in the presence • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library /collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds • Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/�les /documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf • Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov /media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-mayoccur-project-action NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for
potential susceptibilities in o�shore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for
potential susceptibilities in o�shore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 8 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 184 ends

probability of presence breeding season survey e�ort no data score. One can have higher con�dence in the presence score if the corresponding survey e�ort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Survey E�ort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey e�ort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o� the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 9 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 185 ends

Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Golden
Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my speci�ed location?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN).

The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and �ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identi�ed as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my speci�ed location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and �ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identi�ed as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to o�shore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field O�ce if you have questions.

Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to 1 2
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 10 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 186 ends

The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may �nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o� the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

BREEDING SEASON
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Speci�cally, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library /collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds • Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/�les/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf • Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov /media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-mayoccur-project-action 3 NAME
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637
Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 11 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 187 ends

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for
potential susceptibilities in o�shore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9591
Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31
Black Skimmer Rynchops niger
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5234
Breeds May 20 to Sep 15
Black Swift Cypseloides niger
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8878
Breeds Jun 15 to Sep 10
Black Tern Chlidonias niger
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3093
Breeds May 15 to Aug 20
Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds elsewhere
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 12 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 188 ends

California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for
potential susceptibilities in o�shore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Lawrence's Gold�nch Carduelis lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Long-eared Owl asio otus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3631
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481
Breeds elsewhere
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 13 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 189 ends

Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Scripps's Murrelet Synthliboramphus scrippsi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Feb 20 to Jul 31
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480
Breeds elsewhere
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Willet Tringa semipalmata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds elsewhere
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 14 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 190 ends

Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", speci�cally the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9726
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 15 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 191 ends

probability of presence breeding season survey e�ort no data your project area.

To see a bar's survey e�ort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's
Hummingbird
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Belding's
Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Black
Oystercatcher
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Black
Skimmer
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Black Swift
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 16 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 192 ends

Black Tern
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Black
Turnstone
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Bullock's
Oriole

BCC - BCR
California
Gull
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
California
Thrasher
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Common
Yellowthroat

BCC - BCR
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Lawrence's
Gold�nch
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Long-eared
Owl
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Marbled
Godwit
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 17 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 193 ends

Nuttall's
Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Scripps's
Murrelet
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Short-billed
Dowitcher
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Tricolored
Blackbird
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Western
Grebe
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Willet
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Wrentit
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Yellow-billed
Magpie
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 18 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 194 ends

migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my speci�ed location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci�ed location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the pro�les provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe speci�ed. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 19 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 195 ends

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Paci�c Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in o�shore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. o�shore energy development or longline �shing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, e�orts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially a�ected by o�shore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o� the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also o�ers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results �les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci�ed location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey e�ort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey e�ort is the key component. If the survey e�ort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey e�ort bar or no data bar means a lack of IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 20 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 196 ends

data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to con�rm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be con�rmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no �sh hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

This location did not intersect any wetlands mapped by NWI.

IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 21 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 197 ends

NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identi�ed based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography.

A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classi�cation established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth veri�cation work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or �eld work.

There may be occasional di�erences in polygon boundaries or classi�cations between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuber�cid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may de�ne and describe wetlands in a di�erent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to de�ne the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modi�cations within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning speci�ed agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may a�ect such activities.

IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/CFZYBQ47CJCPLCXZNV... 22 of 22 12/20/2023, 4:46 PM
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 198 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates

APPENDIX C
Special-Status Species Table
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 199 ends

Special-Status Species Table
USGS quadrangles: Monterey, Marina, Seaside, Mt. Carmel, Soberanes Point.

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area

MAMMALS
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend’s big-eared bat
-- / CSC / -- Found primarily in rural settings from inland deserts to coastal redwoods, oak woodland of the inner Coast
Ranges and Sierra foothills, and low to mid-elevation
mixed coniferous-deciduous forests. Typically roost
during the day in limestone caves, lava tubes, and
mines, but can roost in buildings that offer suitable
conditions. Night roosts are in more open settings and
include bridges, rock crevices, and trees.

Low
Suitable foraging habitat is present in the
project site. No day or maternity roosting
habitat present within the project site. The
CNDDB reports one occurrence of this
species within the quadrangles reviewed,
located approximately nine miles west of the
project site. This species was not detected
during 2024 acoustic bat surveys.

Lasiurus blossevillii
Western red bat -- / CSC / -- Roosting habitat includes trees and sometimes shrubs in forests and woodlands from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. Roost sites are often in edge
habitats adjacent to streams, fields, or urban areas.

Feeds over a wide variety of habitats, including
grasslands, shrublands, open woodlands and forests,
and croplands.

Present
Suitable foraging and roosting habitat is
present throughout the project site, especially
within Zones 2-4. This species was detected
during 2024 acoustic bat surveys.

Sorex ornatus salarius
Monterey shrew
-- / CSC / -- Mostly moist or riparian woodland habitats, and within chaparral, grassland, and emergent wetland habitats
where there is a thick duff or downed logs.

Unlikely
No suitable riparian woodland habitat is
present within the survey area. CNDDB
occurrences from the Monterey Peninsula are
>80 years old.

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

Unlikely
No suitable grassland habitat is present
within the survey area.

BIRDS
Agelaius tricolor
Tricolored blackbird
(nesting colony)
-- / ST / -- Nest in colonies in dense riparian vegetation, along rivers, lagoons, lakes, and ponds. Primarily found
within willow riparian and emergent wetland habitats.

Forages over grassland or aquatic habitats.

Low
No suitable wetland, riparian, or grassland
habitat is present within the survey area.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 200 ends

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Athene cunicularia
Western burrowing owl
-- / SC / -- Year-round resident of open, dry grassland and desert habitats, and in grass, forb and open shrub stages of
pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitats. Frequents
open grasslands and shrublands with perches and
burrows. Use rodent burrows (often California ground
squirrel) for roosting and nesting cover. Pipes, culverts, and nest boxes may be substituted for burrows in areas
where burrows are not available.

Low
The survey area lacks open habitat and small
mammal burrows preferred by Western
burrowing owl.

Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Marbled murrelet
(nesting)
FT / SE / -- Occur year-round in marine subtidal and pelagic habitats from the Oregon border to Point Sal. Partial to coastlines with stands of mature redwood and Douglasfir. Requires dense mature forests of redwood and/or Douglas-fir for breeding and nesting.

Unlikely
No suitable redwood forest or Douglas fir
habitat is present within the project site.

Charadrius alexandrinus
nivosus
Western snowy plover
FT / CSC / -- Sandy beaches on marine and estuarine shores, also salt pond levees and the shores of large alkali lakes.

Requires sandy, gravelly or friable soil substrate for
nesting.

Unlikely
No suitable beach or shore habitat within the
project site.

Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
FT / SE / -- Inhabits extensive deciduous riparian thickets or forests with dense, low-level or understory foliage, slowmoving watercourses, backwaters, or seeps. Willow almost always a dominant component of the vegetation.

Unlikely
No suitable riparian habitat within the project
site.

Coturnicops
noveboracensis
Yellow rail
-- / CSC / -- Wet meadows and coastal tidal marshes. Occurs year round in California, but in two primary seasonal roles:
as a very local breeder in the northeastern interior and as a winter visitor (early Oct to mid-Apr) on the coast and in the Suisun Marsh region
Unlikely
No suitable marsh habitat within the project
site.

Cypseloides niger
Black swift
-- / CSC / -- Regularly nests in moist crevice or cave on sea cliffs above the surf, or on cliffs behind, or adjacent to,
waterfalls in deep canyons. Forages widely over many
habitats.

Unlikely
No suitable cliff habitat within the project
site.

Elanus leucurus
White-tailed kite
(nesting)
-- / CFP / -- Open groves, river valleys, marshes, and grasslands.

Prefer such areas with low roosts (fences etc.). Nest in shrubs and trees adjacent to grasslands.

Moderate
Moderate nesting potential for white-tailed
kite is present in the project area within
Monterey pine forest. This species has been
observed in GWP in 2019 (Dudek, 2023).

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 201 ends

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Gymnogyps californianus
California condor
FE / SE / -- Roosting sites in isolated rocky cliffs, rugged chaparral, and pine covered mountains 2000-6000 feet above sea
level. Foraging area removed from nesting/roosting site (includes rangeland and coastal area - up to 19-mile
commute one way). Nest sites in cliffs, crevices,
potholes.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the project site.

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

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the project site.

Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black rail
--/ ST&CFP/ - Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows & shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger bays.

Needs water depths of about 1 inch that does not
fluctuate during the year & dense vegetation for nesting habitat.

Unlikely
No suitable marsh habitat within the project
site.

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

Unlikely
No suitable bank and aquatic habitat within
the project site.

Vireo bellii pusillus
Least Bell’s vireo
(nesting)
FE / SE / -- Riparian areas and drainages. Breed in willow riparian forest supporting a dense, shrubby understory. Oak
woodland with a willow riparian understory is also
used in some areas, and individuals sometimes enter
adjacent chaparral, coastal sage scrub, or desert scrub habitats to forage.

Unlikely
No suitable riparian habitat within the project
site. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is 21
miles away along Pajaro River.

Sternula antillarum
browni
California least tern
FE / SE / -- Prefers undisturbed nest sites on open, sandy/gravelly shores near shallow-water feeding areas in estuaries.

Sea beaches, bays, large rivers, bars.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the project site.

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

Unlikely
No suitable grassland habitat or seasonal
water sources are present within or adjacent
to the survey area. The nearest CTS
occurrence is 7 miles from the site. This
distance exceeds the known movement
capability of CTS (1.3 miles).

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 202 ends

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Anniella pulchra
California legless lizard
(includes A. p. nigra and
A. p. pulchra as
recognized by the
Department)
-- / CSC / -- Requires moist, warm habitats with loose soil for burrowing and prostrate plant cover. Often forages in
leaf litter at plant bases. May be found on beaches,
sandy washes, and in woodland, chaparral, and riparian
areas.

Present
Documented in the southwest corner of GWP
by CNDDB Occurrence 375 where one
individual was found in 2017 in an area of
sandy soil. The project activities do not
propose soil disturbance and therefore are
unlikely to impact this species.

Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
FC / CSC / -- Associated with permanent or nearly permanent water in a wide variety of habitats including streams, lakes, ponds, irrigation ditches, etc. Require basking sites
such as partially submerged logs, rocks, mats of
vegetation, or open banks.

Unlikely
No suitable aquatic habitat is present within
or adjacent to the survey area.

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

Low
No suitable chaparral, scrub, or grassland
habitat is present within the survey area.

Known from Former Fort Ord, approximately
7 miles from project site.

Rana boylii
Foothill yellow-legged
frog
FE / SE / -- Partly shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats, including hardwood, pine, and riparian forests, scrub, chaparral, and wet
meadows. Rarely encountered far from permanent
water.

Unlikely
No suitable riverine habitat is present within
the survey area.

Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
FT / CSC / -- Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent or lateseason sources of deep water with dense, shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation. During late summer or
fall adults are known to utilize a variety of upland
habitats with leaf litter or mammal burrows.

Low
There are no known occurrences within 1.0
mile (1.6 km), the known dispersal distance
of the species. The nearest CNDDB
occurrence is 2.4 miles southwest of the
survey area in Seal Rock Creek. No
freshwater aquatic resources occur within
300 meters of the survey area.

Taricha torosa
Coast Range newt
-- / CSC / -- Occur mainly in valley-foothill hardwood, valleyfoothill hardwood-conifer, coastal scrub, and mixed chaparral, but is known to occur in grasslands and
mixed conifer types. Seek cover under rocks and logs,
in mammal burrows, rock fissures, or man-made
structures such as wells. Breed in intermittent ponds,
streams, lakes, and reservoirs.

Unlikely
No suitable breeding habitat is present within
or adjacent to the survey area to support this
species. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is
approximately 7.5 miles away in the Santa
Lucia range.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 203 ends

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

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the project site.

Lavinia exilicauda
harengus
Monterey hitch
(Pajaro/Salinas hitch)
-- / CSC / -- Found only within the Pajaro and Salinas River systems. Can occupy a wide variety of habitats,
however, they are most abundant in lowland areas with
large pools or small reservoirs that mimic such
conditions. May be found in brackish water conditions
within the Salinas River lagoon during the early
summer months when the sandbar forms at the mouth
of the river.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the project site.

Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus
Steelhead-central
California coast.

FT / -- / -- Coastal perennial and near perennial streams, with suitable spawning and rearing habitat and no major
barriers.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the project site.

INVERTEBRATES
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
-- / SC / -- Occurs in open grassland and scrub at relatively warm and dry sites. Requires plants that bloom and provide
adequate nectar and pollen throughout the colony’s life cycle, which is from early February to late October.

Generally nests underground, often in abandoned
mammal burrows. Within California this species is
known to occur in the Mediterranean, Pacific Coast,
Western Desert, as well as Great Valley and adjacent
foothill regions.

Not Present
There are no CNDDB occurrences of this
species within the quadrangles reviewed;
however, this species has been observed in
Carmel Valley in 2022, approximately 26
miles southeast of the project site. Project site
is within the current range of this species but
does not contain its preferred grassland or
scrub habitat. This species was not observed
during focused bumble bee surveys
performed in 2024 (Appendix F).

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 204 ends

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Bombus occidentalis
Western bumble bee
-- / SC / -- Found in a range of habitats, including mixed woodlands, farmlands, urban parks and gardens,
montane meadows, and prairie grasslands. Requires
plants that bloom and provide adequate nectar and
pollen throughout the colony’s life cycle, which is from early February to late November. Generally nests
underground, often in abandoned mammal burrows.

Not Present
Project site supports suitable mixed
woodland habitat with flowering plants but
lies outside the current known range of this
species. Three CNDDB records exist from
the Monterey Peninsula, but all are more than
50 years old. This species was not observed
during focused bumble bee surveys
performed in 2024 (Appendix F).

Branchinecta lynchi
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
FT / -- / -- Associated with vernal pool/grasslands from near Red Bluff (Shasta County), through the central valley, and
into the South Coast Mountains Region. Require
ephemeral pools with no flow.

Unlikely
Vernal pools are absent from the project site.

Danaus plexippus
Monarch butterfly
FC / -- / -- Overwinters in coastal California using colonial roosts generally found in eucalyptus, pine, and acacia trees.

Overwintering habitat for this species within the
Coastal Zone represents ESHA. Local ordinances often
protect this species as well.

Present
The survey area contains suitable
overwintering sites for this species. A historic
overwintering site is documented in Zone 3
of GWP as CNDDB Occurrence 89, Xerces
Society Site #2934. Overwintering monarch
butterflies have not been observed here since
2006.

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

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present within the
survey area. The plant host species were not
identified during 2024 surveys.

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

Not Present
Project site contains suitable closed-cone
coniferous forest habitat. Numerous CNDDB
occurrences within Monterey pine forest on
the Monterey Peninsula, the nearest of which
is approximately 1.4 miles to the southeast.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 205 ends

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Aphyllon robbinsii
Robbins’ broomrape
-- / -- / 1B Coastal bluff scrub and coastal dunes in sandy or loose soils at elevations of 0 - 100 meters. Annual plant that is parasitic on Eriophyllum staechadifolium.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Host plant species absent from survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Arctostaphylos
montereyensis
Monterey manzanita
-- / -- / 1B Maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub on sandy soils at elevations of 30-730 meters.

Evergreen shrub in the Ericaceae family; blooms
February-March.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Arenaria paludicola
Marsh sandwort
FE / SE / 1B Known from only two natural occurrences in Black Lake Canyon and at Oso Flaco Lake. Sandy openings
of freshwater of brackish marshes and swamps at
elevations of 3-170 meters. Stoloniferous perennial
herb in the Caryophyllaceae family; blooms MayAugust.

Not Present
Project site is not near the two known
occurrences. Not observed within the project
site during 2024 botanical surveys.

Castilleja ambigua var.
insalutata
Pink johnny-nip
-- / -- / 1B Coastal prairie and coastal scrub at elevations of 0-100 meters. Annual herb in the Orobanchaceae family;
blooms May-August.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 206 ends

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
Congdon’ tarplant
-- / -- /1B Valley and foothill grassland on alkaline soils at elevations of 0-230 meters. Annual herb in the
Asteraceae family; blooms May-November.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Chorizanthe minutiflora
Fort Ord spineflower
-- / -- / 1B Sandy openings of maritime chaparral and coastal scrub at elevations of 55-150 meters. Only known
occurrences on Fort Ord National Monument. Annual
herb in the Polygonaceae family; blooms April-July.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
Known from nearby dune and coastal bluff
habitats at Asilomar Dunes and Point Pinos,
but project site lacks open sandy areas
preferred by this species. Not observed
within the project site during 2024 botanical
surveys.

Clarkia jolonensis
Jolon clarkia
-- / -- / 1B Cismontane woodland, chaparral, riparian woodland, and coastal scrub at elevations of 20-660 meters.

Annual herb in the Onagraceae family; blooms AprilJune.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Collinsia multicolor
San Francisco collinsia
-- / -- / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest and coastal scrub, sometimes on serpentinite soils, at elevations of 30-250 meters. Annual herb in the Plantaginaceae family;
blooms March-May.

Not Present
Suitable habitat in closed-cone coniferous
forest within the survey area. Not observed
within the project site during 2024 botanical
surveys.

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

Not Present
Suitable habitat in closed-cone coniferous
forest within the survey area. Not observed
within the project site during 2024 botanical
surveys.

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

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Survey area outside of elevation range of
species. Not observed within the project site
during 2024 botanical surveys.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 207 ends

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Delphinium hutchinsoniae
Hutchinsons’ larkspur
-- / -- / 1B Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, coastal scrub, and coastal prairie at elevations of 0-427 meters.

Perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae family; blooms
March-June.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Survey area outside of elevation range of
species. Not observed within the project site
during 2024 botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
Suitable habitat in closed-cone coniferous
forest within the survey area. Not observed
within the project site during 2024 botanical
surveys.

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

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Survey area outside of elevation range of
species. Not observed within the project site
during 2024 botanical surveys.

Eryngium montereyense
Fort Ord button-celery
-- / -- / 1B Vernally moist swales and vernal pools in valley and foothill grassland surrounded by maritime chaparral
and coast live oak woodland on marine sedimentary
substrate at elevations or 120-180 meters. Perennial
herb in the Apiaceae family; blooms March-May.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Erysimum menziesii
Menzies’ wallflower
FE / SE / 1B Coastal dunes at elevations of 0-35 meters. Perennial herb in the Brassicaceae family; blooms MarchSeptember.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Known from nearby dune and coastal bluff
habitats at Asilomar Dunes and Point Pinos,
but project site lacks open sandy areas
preferred by this species. Not observed
within the project site during 2024 botanical
surveys.

Fritillaria liliacea
Fragrant fritillaria
-- / -- / 1B Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland, often serpentinite, at elevations of 3-410 meters. Bulbiferous perennial herb
in the Liliaceae family; blooms February-April.

Not Present
Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 208 ends

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Gilia tenuiflora ssp.
arenaria
Sand gilia
FE / ST / 1B Openings in maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub on sandy soils at
elevations of 0-45 meters. Annual herb in the
Polemoniaceae family; blooms April-June.

Not Present
Known from nearby dune habitats at
Asilomar Dunes, but project site lacks open
sandy areas preferred by this species. Not
observed within the project site during 2024
botanical surveys.

Hesperocyparis
goveniana
Gowen cypress
FT / -- / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest and maritime chaparral at elevations of 30-300 meters. Evergreen tree in the
Cupressaceae family. Natively occurring only at Point
Lobos near Gibson Creek and the Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve near Highway 68.

Not Present
Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa
Monterey cypress
-- / -- / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest at elevations of 10-30 meters. Evergreen tree in the Cupressaceae family.

Natively occurring only at Cypress Point in Pebble
Beach and Point Lobos State Park; widely planted and
naturalized elsewhere.

Present
The survey area is outside of the historic
native occurrences of Monterey cypress
mapped by the CNDDB. Monterey cypress
trees are found within GWP but are
naturalized individuals and are not afforded
the same management protections as
Monterey cypress trees in native stands.

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

Not Present
Suitable habitat in closed-cone coniferous
forest within the survey area. Not observed
within the project site during 2024 botanical
surveys.

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

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
FE / -- / 1B Mesic areas of valley and foothill grassland, alkaline playas, cismontane woodland, and vernal pools at
elevations of 0-470 meters. Annual herb in the
Asteraceae family; blooms March-June.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 209 ends

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Lupinus tidestromii
Tidestrom’s lupine
FE / SE / 1B Coastal dunes at elevations of 0-100 meters. Perennial rhizomatous herb in the Fabaceae family; blooms
April-June.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Known from nearby dune habitats at
Asilomar Dunes, but project site lacks open
sandy areas preferred by this species. Not
observed within the project site during 2024
botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Malacothrix saxatilis var.
arachnoidea
Carmel Valley
malacothrix
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral and coastal scrub on rocky soils at elevations of 25-1036 meters. Perennial rhizomatous herb in the
Asteraceae family; blooms June-December.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Microseris paludosa
Marsh microseris
-- / -- /1B Mesic areas of closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and
foothill grasslands at elevations of 3-300 meters.

Perennial herb in the Asteraceae family; blooms AprilJune (July).

Not Present
Marginal habitat in low-lying areas of closedcone coniferous forest within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Monardella sinuata ssp.
nigrescens
Northern curly-leaved
monardella
-- / -- /1B Chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and lower montane coniferous forest (ponderosa pine sandhills)
on sandy soils at elevations of 0-300 meters. Annual
herb in the Lamiaceae family; blooms AprilSeptember.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Monolopia gracilens
Woodland wollythreads
-- / -- / 1B Chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grassland on sandy soils at elevations of 60-800 meters. Annual herb in the Asteraceae family; blooms: February-May.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Pinus radiata
Monterey pine
-- / -- / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest at elevations of 25-185 meters. Evergreen tree in the Pinaceae family. Only
three native stands in CA, at Ano Nuevo, Cambria, and
the Monterey Peninsula; introduced in many areas.

Present
Monterey pines within the survey area belong
to CNDDB Occurrence 4, which identifies
the native range of this species within the
Monterey Peninsula and the surrounding
area.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 210 ends

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Piperia yadonii
Yadon’s rein orchid
FE / -- / 1B Sandy soils in coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, and maritime chaparral at elevations of 10-510 meters. Annual herb in the Orchidaceae
family; blooms May-August.

Present
Non-specific CNDDB Occurrence 4 includes
all of GWP. This species observed during
2023 and marked by City of Pacific Grove
and confirmed by DD&A during 2024
botanical surveys.

Plagiobothrys uncinatus
Hooked popcorn flower
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodlands, valley and foothill grasslands on sandy soils; elevation 300-760 meters.

Annual herb in the Boraginaceae family, blooms AprilMay.

Not Present
Survey area outside of elevation range of
species. Not observed within the project site
during 2024 botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
Suitable habitat in closed-cone coniferous
forest within the survey area. Not observed
within the project site during 2024 botanical
surveys.

Ramalina thrausta
Angel’s hair lichen
-- / -- / 2B North coast coniferous forest on dead twigs and other lichens. Epiphytic fructose lichen in the Ramalinaceae
family. In northern CA it is usually found on dead
twigs, and has been found on Alnus rubra, Calocedrus
decurrens, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus garryana,
and Rubus spectabilis. In Sonoma County it grows on
and among dangling mats of R. menziesii and Usnea
spp.

Not Present
No suitable habitat is present within the
project site. Not observed within the project
site during the 2024 botanical surveys. None
of the host species are present within the
project site.

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

Not Present
Suitable habitat in closed-cone coniferous
forest within the survey area. Not observed
within the project site during 2024 botanical
surveys.

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

Not Present
Suitable habitat in closed-cone coniferous
forest within the survey area. Not observed
within the project site during 2024 botanical
surveys.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 211 ends

Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Sulcaria spiralifera
Twisted horsehair lichen
-- / -- / 1B California North Coast coniferous forest at elevations of 0–30 meters. Often found on conifers, including
Picea sitchensis, Pinus contorta var. contorta,
Pseudotsuga menziesii, Abies grandis, and Tsuga
heterophylla. Fruticose lichen in the Parmeliaceae
family.

Not Present
No suitable habitat is present within the
project site. Not observed within the survey
area during the 2024 botanical surveys. None
of the host species are present within the
project site.

Tortula californica
California screw moss
-- / -- / 1B Valley and foothill grassland and chenopod scrub on sandy soils at elevations of 10-1460. Moss in the
Pottiaceae family.

Not Present
No suitable habitat is present within the
project site. Not observed within the survey
area during the 2024 botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
Survey area outside of elevation range of
species. Not observed within the project site
during 2024 botanical surveys.

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

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Not observed within the project site during
2024 botanical surveys.

Trifolium polyodon
Pacific Grove clover
-- / SR / 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, and mesic areas in valley and
foothill grassland at elevations of 5-120 meters. Annual herb in the Fabaceae family; blooms April-June.

Not Present
Suitable habitat in closed-cone coniferous
forest within the survey area. Not observed
within the project site during 2024 botanical
surveys.

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

Annual herb in the Fabaceae family; blooms AprilJune.

Not Present
Suitable habitat in closed-cone coniferous
forest within the survey area. Not observed
within the project site during 2024 botanical
surveys.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 212 ends

STATUS DEFINITIONS:

Federal
FC = federal candidate species for listing under ESA
FE = listed as Endangered under ESA
FT = listed as Threatened under ESA
-- = not listed
State
SC = state candidate species for listing under CESA
SE = listed as Endangered under CESA
ST = listed as Threatened under CESA
SR = listed as Rare under CESA
CSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
CFP = California Fully Protected Species
-- = not listed
California Native Plant Society
1B = List 1B species; rare, threatened, or endangered in California 2B = List 2B species; rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere

POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Present – known occurrence of species within the site; presence of suitable habitat conditions; or observed during field surveys High – known occurrence of species in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation; presence of suitable habitat conditions Moderate – known occurrence of species in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation; presence of marginal habitat conditions Low – species known to occur in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation; presence of low quality habitat conditions Unlikely – species not known to occur in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation; no suitable habitat is present Not Present – species not observed during surveys
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 213 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates

APPENDIX D
List of Flora and Fauna Observed
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 214 ends

APPENDIX D
George Washington Park Biological Resources Report
Plant Species Observations - 2024
Common Name Botanical Name Status Cal IPC 2024
DD&A
1999
Master
Plan
2022 Forest
Management
Plan
Bailey acacia Acacia baileyana x
Sydney golden wattle Acacia longifolia Watch list x x
black acacia Acacia melanoxylon Limited x
common yarrow Achillea millefolium x x
dandelion Agoseris aparagioides x x
bent grass Agrostis spp. x x
belladonna lily Amaryllis belladonna x x
Norfolk Island pine Araucaria excelsa x
western dwarf mistletoe Arceuthobium campylopodum x
shaggy bark manzanita Arctostaphylos tomentosa x
sterile capeweed Arctotheca prostrata x
mugwort Artemisia douglasiana x
slender wild oat Avena barbata Moderate x x x
wild oat Avena fatua Moderate x
coyote brush Baccharis pilularis x
common borage Borago officinalis x
field mustard Brassica rapa Limited x
rattlesnake grass Briza maxima Limited x x x
golden brodiaea Brodiaea lutea x
California brome Bromus carinatus x x
rescue grass Bromus catharticus x
ripgut brome Bromus diandrus Moderate x x
softchess Bromus hordeaceus Limited x x
foxtail chess Bromus madritensis x x
tufted pine grass Calamagrostis koelerioides x
Pacific reed grass Calamagrostis nutkaensis x
globe lily Calochortus albus x
milk maids Cardamine californica x
sand mat Cardionema ramosissimum x
Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephala Moderate x x
sand dune sedge Carex pansa x x
clustered field sedge Carex praegracilis x
Hottentot fig Carpobrotus edulis High x x
California lilac Ceanothus thyrsiflorus x x x
wavyleaf soap plant Chlorogalum pomeridianum x
rockrose Cistus sp. x
miner's lettuce Claytonia perfoliata x x
yerba buena Clinopodium douglasii x x x
jubata grass Cortaderia jubata High x
montbretia Crocosmia crocosmiiflora x
dogtail grass Cynosurus echinatus Moderate x
broom Cytisus scoparius High x
Cape ivy Delairea odorata High x x
hair grass Deschampsia sp. x
blue dicks Dichelostemma capitatum x
sticky monkey flower Diplacus aurantiacus x x x
wood fern Dryopteris arguta x
pride of Madeira Echium candicans Limited x x x
panic veldtgrass Ehrharta erecta Moderate x x
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 215 ends

APPENDIX D
George Washington Park Biological Resources Report
Plant Species Observations - 2024
Common Name Botanical Name Status Cal IPC 2024
DD&A
1999
Master
Plan
2022 Forest
Management
Plan
giant wild rye Elymus condensatus x x x
creeping ryegrass Elymus triticoides x
flax-leaved horseweed Erigeron bonariensis x
Canadian horseweed Erigeron canadensis x x
lizard tail Eriophyllum staechadifolium x
red-stemmed filaree Erodium circutarium x
rat-tail fescue Festuca myuros Moderate x x
perennial ryegrass Festuca perennis Moderate x x
red fescue Festuca rubra x
sweet fennel Foeniculum vulgare Moderate x
California coffeeberry Frangula californica x x x
goosegrass Galium aparine x x
California bedstraw Galium californicum x
French broom Genista monspessulana High x x
dove's foot geranium Geranium molle x
English ivy Hedera helix High x x
Monterey cypress Hesperocyparus macrocarpa -/-/1B x x x toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia x x
velvet grass Holcus lanatus Moderate x
meadow barley Hordeum brachyantherum x
foxtail barley Hordeum muriun x x
witch's teeth Hosackia gracilis x
English holly Ilex aquifolium Limited x x
Douglas iris Iris douglasiana x x
common bog rush Juncus hesperius x
salt rush Juncus lescurii x
Mexican rush Juncus mexicanus x
Pacific pea Lathyrus vestitus x x x
hairy honeysuckle Lonicera hispidula x x x
yellow bush lupine Lupinus arboreus x
wild cucumber Marah fabacea x x x
bur clover Medicago polymorpha Limited x
lollypop tree Myoporum laetum Moderate x x
redwood sorrel Oxalis oregana x
Bermuda buttercup Oxalis pes-caprae Moderate x x
kikuyu grass Pennisetum clandestinum Limited x x
stinging phacelia Phacelia malvifolia x
branching phacelia Phacelia ramosissima x
Monterey pine Pinus radiata -/-/1B x x x
Yadon's piperia Piperia yadonii FE/-/1B x x
flowering plum Prunus sp. x x
cottonbatting plant Pseudognaphalium stramineum x
western brackenfern Pteridium aquilinium x x x
coast live oak Quercus agrifolia x x x
Califoria buttercup Ranunculus californicus x
chaparral currant Ribes malvaceum x x
pink flowering currant Ribes sanguineum glutinosum x
California blackberry Rubus ursinus x x x
curly dock Rumex crispus x
coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens x x x
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 216 ends

APPENDIX D
George Washington Park Biological Resources Report
Plant Species Observations - 2024
Common Name Botanical Name Status Cal IPC 2024
DD&A
1999
Master
Plan
2022 Forest
Management
Plan
blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium bellum x
Douglas' nightshade Solanum douglasii x
hedge nettle Stachys bullata x x x
chickweed Stellaria media x
creeping snowberry Symphoicarpos mollis x x
poison oak Toxicodendron diversilobum x x x
nasturtium Tropaeolum majus x
evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum x
vetch Vicia sp. x x
calla lily Zantedeschia aethiopica x x
Fremont's star lily Zigadenus fremontii x
Notes:

FE - Federal endangered
1B = List 1B species; rare, threatened, or endangered in California PGCC 2-19-25

Page 217 ends

APPENDIX D
George Washington Park Biological Resources Report
Wildlife Species Observations - 2024
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Scrub jay Aphelocoma californica
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus
Red tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Red shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus
Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Stellar jay Cyanocitta stelleri
Nuttall's woodpecker Dryobates nuttallii
Pacific slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis
House finch Haemorhous mexicanus
Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis
Hairy woodpecker Leuconotopicus villosus
Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia
California towhee Melozone crissalis
Band tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus
Chestnut-backed chickadee Poecile rufescens
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans
Townsend's warbler Setophaga townsendi
Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Collared dove Streptopelia decaocto
European starling Sturnus vulgaris
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor
Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii
Hutton's vireo Vireo huttoni
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Coyote Canis latrans
Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus
Silver-haired bat Lasionyteris noctavagans
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus
Western red bat Lasiurus frantzii CSC
Western small-footed myotis Myotic ciliolabrum
California myotis Myotis californicus
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis
Black tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus
Western pipistrelle Parastrellus hesperus
Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida braziliensis
Vosnesensky bumble bee Bombus vosnesenskii
Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus FC
Notes:

CSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
FC = federal candidate species for listing under ESA
Birds
Mammals
Invertebrates
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 218 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates

APPENDIX E
Avian Survey Results
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 219 ends

E-1
Appendix E
George Washington Park Biological Resources Report
Summary of Avian Point Count Data
Table 1. Summary of Total Avian Species Diversity
Zone Shannon
Diversity
Species
Richness
Zone 1 2.35 14
Zone 2 2.42 16
Zone 3 2.35 16
Zone 4 2.53 16
All Zones Combined 2.65 26
Figure 1. Summary of Total Point Count Observations
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 220 ends

E-2
Figure 2. Summary of Total Point Count Observations by Zone PGCC 2-19-25

Page 221 ends

E-3
Table 2. Summary of Avian Point Count Data – Totals by Zone Species Common Name Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Sum
tree swallow 1 0 0 0 1
stellar jay 1 0 0 0 1
hairy woodpecker 0 1 0 0 1
collared dove 0 0 1 0 1
band tailed pigeon 0 0 1 0 1
pygmy nuthatch 0 0 0 1 1
red shouldered hawk 1 0 1 0 2
Nuttall's woodpecker 0 1 1 0 2
lesser goldfinch 0 1 0 1 2
mourning dove 0 0 2 0 2
Hutton's vireo 0 0 0 2 2
European starling 0 0 0 3 3
scrub jay 3 1 0 0 4
black phoebe 2 2 0 0 4
Bewick's wren 0 0 3 2 5
American crow 5 1 2 3 11
California towhee 1 1 7 3 12
oak titmouse 7 3 0 3 13
Pacific slope flycatcher 0 4 3 7 14
Anna's hummingbird 1 8 5 6 20
house finch 0 5 4 12 21
song sparrow 2 8 2 11 23
chestnut backed chickadee 4 7 10 7 28
spotted towhee 3 11 7 10 31
dark-eyed junco 10 10 9 13 42
acorn woodpecker 7 13 22 7 49
Total 48 77 80 91 296
Notes:

Stations 25m radius, 5-minute observation period
Survey Dates: 6-19-24, 7-10-24, 8-23-24
Excludes flyovers
Point Count Station Area (hectares) 0.20
Number of Stations 20
Total Area (hectares) 4.00
Total Area (acres) 9.88
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 222 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 223 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates

APPENDIX F
Bumble Bee Survey Results
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 224 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
Bumble Bee Survey Results 1
George Washington Park
Bumble Bee Survey Results
George Washington Park
December 2024
Background
Denise Duffy & Associates (DD&A) performed focused photographic surveys during 2024 for candidate special-status bumble bees at George Washington Park (GWP) in Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California. The purpose of the surveys was to assess habitat conditions for bumble bees and determine if western bumble bee (WBB; Bombus occidentalis) or Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB; Bombus crotchii) is present. Both species are state candidate endangered. The project site lies within the historic range of WBB and the current range of CBB. The surveys were conducted as part of a biological resources study performed at GWP to support environmental analysis of proposed forest management activities within the park.

The proposed forest management activities within the approximately 20-acre forested park include fire hazard reduction within approximately 100 feet of residential structures, restoration of Monterey pine forest in select areas, and maintenance of the existing trail system. The park is divided into four management zones. Zone 1 consists of active recreational facilities that include a baseball field, picnic area, playground, restrooms and adjacent areas where understory vegetation is kept at a minimum. Zones 2 – 4 consist of areas of passive recreational use with unimproved footpaths that meander through the natural woodland habitat.

Records Review
The records search performed as part of the biological resources study utilized the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Bumblebeewatch.org, and the California Bumble Bee Atlas (CABBA) observations dataset. These resources did not identify any known recent occurrence of WBB or CBB in the vicinity of GWP. One 1937 observation of WBB is reported from the CNDDB from Point Piños, approximately 0.80-miles northwest of the project site. No CBB observations are present in the CNDDB within the quadrangles reviewed; however, CBB has been reported from Hastings Reservation approximately 26 miles southeast of the project site in 2022 (pers. comm. Leif Richardson of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 2023).

Survey Methods
No state approved protocol presence/absence survey methodology currently exists for these two species.

However, CDFW recently released a Survey Consideration document (CDFW, 2023) which provides methods to consider during a presence/absence survey effort. Survey methods were derived from the CDFW Survey Consideration document and consisted of both a habitat assessment and field photographic surveys.

However, no bumble bees were captured or handled, and the identification relies on photographs of bumblebees on vegetation. Surveys were conducted when bumble bees are likely to be active (The Xerces PGCC 2-19-25

Page 225 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
Bumble Bee Survey Results 2
George Washington Park
Society, 2020; USFWS, 2019). As shown in Table 1 of the Survey Considerations publication, the highest detection windows for WBB and CBB are April-September and April-August, respectively.

Habitat Assessment
Habitat for bumble bees was assessed over the course of April through September 2024 at GWP concurrently with vegetation surveys using methods identified in Xerces Society (2020) and USFWS (2019). The entire park was traversed on a series of meandering transects oriented along the long axis of the park. The habitat assessment included identifying native and non-native flowering resources available and estimating percent cover; generally assessing plant species richness and diversity; and documenting presence of nesting resources available including small-mammal burrows, piles of woody debris, fallen logs, or rock piles. The assessment also included vegetation mapping and documentation of the various uses and management practices at the site.

Photographic Surveys
Surveys for bumble bees were performed between April and September of 2024, which includes the period when most plant species in GWP are in peak bloom. A total of five surveys were performed totaling 16.8 hours of surveyor effort. Surveys were performed during the morning to mid-day hours between approximately 9 am and 2 pm and followed similar meandering transects to those noted above of the habitat assessment. However, the surveys focused on areas of suitable habitat with flowering plants present in the Monterey pine forest understory; an area of approximately 5.6 acres. The survey area was searched visually for flowering plants and foraging bumble bees as well as potential nesting resources. When bumble bees were encountered, photographs were collected of individuals resting on or feeding on nectar from as many angles as possible to facilitate identification.

Photographs were reviewed in the office to the level necessary to either identify or exclude the individuals as being WBB or CBB. The following resources were utilized to identify bumble bees captured during the survey:
• Pocket Guide to Identifying the Western Bumble Bee (The Xerces Society, 2021), • Guide to Bumble Bees of the Western United States (Koch et. al., 2012), • Bumble Bees of North America, An Identification Guide (Williams et. al., 2014), and • Bumblebeewatch.org.

Table 1 outlines the survey dates, areas, weather conditions, timing, and duration of each survey.

Table 1. Survey Information
Date Site Temp
(°F)
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Cloud
Cover Start Time End Time
Total
Person
Hours
4-16-24 George Washington
Park
60 7 0% 9:15 am 1:15 pm 4.0
6-4-24 George Washington
Park
65 3 0% 9:35 am 12:40 pm 3.1
6-18-24 George Washington
Park
62 1 0% 9:40 am 12:30 pm 2.8
7-10-24 George Washington
Park
60 calm 80% 9:20 am 11:50 am 2.5
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 226 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
Bumble Bee Survey Results 3
George Washington Park
Date Site Temp
(°F)
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Cloud
Cover Start Time End Time
Total
Person
Hours
8-23-24 George Washington
Park
65 5 0% 8:35 am 1:00 pm 4.4
Total 16.8
Results
Vegetation and Floral Resources
The area surveyed consists of an urban forested park dominated by Monterey pine forest. Mature Monterey pines (Pinus radiata) form an upper canopy layer with coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) dominating much of the mid-canopy layer. Other vegetation types consist of oak woodland within the managed recreational zone of the park, as well as ruderal/disturbed areas and developed recreational features including a baseball field, picnic area, and playground (Table 2). Understory vegetation is a mosaic of non-native grasses, native and non-native herbs, and woody vines. Non-native grasses are primarily rattlesnake grass (Briza major), slender wild oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and perennial ryegrass (Festuca perennis). Patches of the non-native vine Cape ivy (Delairea odorata) also occur. Dominant native understory species include poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and hedge nettle (Stachys bullata). Site usage is primarily passive recreational (walking along unimproved trails). Suitable habitat with flowering plants present in the Monterey pine forest understory occupies an area of approximately 5.6 acres, which is comprised of native flowering plants including California blackberry, hedge nettle, sticky monkey flower (Diplacus aurantiacus) and Pacific pea (Lathyrus vestitus) and non-native flowering plants consisting primarily of cape ivy and Pride of Madeira (Echium candicans).

Table 2. Summary of Vegetation Types
Vegetation Type Survey Area
(Acres)
Area with Suitable
Floral Resources
(Acres)
Monterey pine forest 15.52 5.6
Mixed woodland (managed) 2.77 0
Ruderal/Disturbed 0.59 0
Developed Park 0.93 0
Total 19.81 5.6
Table 3 lists the flowering plants observed during each survey event. Areas with flowering plants occur in isolated patches and are not widespread throughout the understory vegetation due to large areas that are dominated by thick growth of non-native annual grass. The most common flowering plants observed were California blackberry, Cape ivy, and hedge nettle.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 227 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
Bumble Bee Survey Results 4
George Washington Park
Table 3. Floral Resources Identified During Surveys
Survey Date Botanical Name Common Name
Estimated Mean %Cover
in Survey Area
4-16-24 Carduus pycnocephala Italian thistle 1-5%
4-16-24 Lathyrus vestitus Pacific pea 1-5%
4-16-24 Rubus ursinus California blackberry 15-25%
4-16-24 Stachys bullata Hedge nettle 5-15%
4-16-24 Vicia sp. Vetch 1-5%
6-4-24 Carduus pycnocephala Italian thistle 1-5%
6-4-24 Delairea odorata Cape ivy 5-15%
6-4-24 Rubus ursinus California blackberry 15-25%
6-4-24 Echium candicans Pride of Madeira 1-5%
6-4-24 Erodium circutarium red-stemmed filaree 1-5%
6-4-24 Stachys bullata Hedge nettle 5-15%
6-18-24 Delairea odorata Cape ivy 5-15%
6-18-24 Echium candicans Pride of Madeira 1-5%
6-18-24 Phacelia malvifolia Stinging phacelia 1-5%
6-18-24 Rubus ursinus California blackberry 15-25%
6-18-24 Stachys bullata Hedge nettle 5-15%
7-10-24 Delairea odorata Cape ivy 5-15%
7-10-24 Echium candicans Pride of Madeira 1-5%
7-10-24 Phacelia malvifolia Stinging phacelia 1-5%
7-10-24 Rubus ursinus California blackberry 15-25%
7-10-24 Stachys bullata Hedge nettle 5-15%
8-23-24 Delairea odorata Cape ivy 5-15%
8-23-24 Diplacus aurantiacus Sticky monkey flower 1-5%
8-23-24 Rubus ursinus California blackberry 15-25%
8-23-24 Stachys bullata Hedge nettle 5-15%
Potential Nesting Locations
Potential nesting locations observed included small mammal burrows, which occur infrequently, piles of dead and downed wood of variable size, and pine needle and oak leaf duff. No bumble bees were observed entering or exiting small mammal burrows or piles of wood during the surveys.

Land Use/Management
Currently, vegetation is managed in Zone 1 to maintain a park-like setting with minimal understory vegetation. This management action includes application of wood chip mulch and cutting/removal of understory vegetation as well as removal of downed woody debris and trash removal. The tree canopy in this area is generally left unmaintained. Turf in the baseball field is irrigated and mowed. Zones 2 – 4 are not currently managed with the exception of trimming vegetation along walking trails, removing hazard limbs in the vicinity of walking trails, and periodic trash removal.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 228 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
Bumble Bee Survey Results 5
George Washington Park
Bumble Bee Observations
As noted above, no bumble bees were captured during the surveys. Bumble bee capture requires a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDFW. Only photographic methods were utilized. In general, few bumble bees were observed during the surveys and in most cases only one individual was observed.

The most activity was observed on the June 19 survey, when between 20 and 30 individuals were observed visiting a patch of stinging phaecelia (Phacelia malvifolia) in flower. Based on the characteristics of the bumble bees observed in the field (Table 4), and the identifying characteristics of WBB and CBB, none of the individuals observed were WBB or CBB, and they are likely Vosnesensky bumble bee (Bombus vosnesenskii). Photographs are provided as Attachment A. While the WBB and CBB have several color forms, the following general characteristics were evaluated:

WBB
• Hair of the face and top of head predominantly black, sometimes yellow intermixed, • 3rd abdomen segment (T3) usually with at least a few scattered yellow hairs, • If 2nd and 3rd abdomen segments (T2-3) entirely black, then 5th and 6th (T5-6) are extensively white or yellow-orange, and
• Hair on the upper side of the thorax between the wings with a black band or at least a large black central spot.

CBB
• Hair of the upper side of the head at the front black, but at the back yellow, • 1st abdomen segment (T1) predominantly black, T2 broadly yellow often with black in the frontmiddle, • 5th abdomen segment often red, but sometimes black.

Table 4. Summary of Bumble Bee Observations
Observation Information Hair Color
Photo
# Date Site Host Plant Face & Head T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Thorax
between
wings
1-3 6/19/24 GWP Stinging
phaecelia Yellow Black Black Black Yellow Black Black Black 4-5 7/10/24 GWP Annual
grass stem
Yellow Black Black Black Yellow Black Black Black
Note: See Attachment A for photographs
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 229 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
Bumble Bee Survey Results 6
George Washington Park
Discussion/Conclusion
WBB and CBB require flowering plants that provide adequate nectar and pollen throughout the colony’s life cycle, which is from early February to late November. Certain areas of the Monterey pine forest understory at GWP contain native and non-native flowering plantsthat could provide pollen and nectar during this time period.

However, although WBB was formerly common from the Pacific coast to the Colorado Rocky Mountains; populations from central California to southern British Columbia, Canada and west of the Sierra-Cascade Ranges have declined sharply since the late 1990s (Koch et. al., 2012; Williams et. al., 2014). In California the species is largely restricted to high elevations sites in the Sierra Nevada. GWP is within the current range of CBB (CDFW, 2023). However, current literature on the species indicates that CBB is now primarily found in coastal southern California and a few areas around Sacramento (Hatfield and Jepson, 2021). Additionally, CBB typically occurs in grassland and scrub habitats (Williams et al., 2014) as opposed to the woodland habitat of GWP.

Bumble bees were observed at GWP during the peak flight season of the WBB and CBB; however, none of the individuals exhibited the color characteristics of theWBB or CBB and all individuals photographed were excluded as being WBB or CBB. Therefore, although the projectsite may provide marginal habitat for these species, the survey results and the currently restricted range for these species suggest that WBB and CBB are not present. As such, the project is unlikely to impact WBB or CBB and no further action is required.

References
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Available Online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: Evaluation of the Petition from the Xerces Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for Food Safety to List Four Species of Bumble Bees as Endangered Under the California Endangered Species Act. Available Online at: https://fgc.ca.gov/CESA
Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L., Colla, S., and Foltz Jordan, S. 2015. Bombus occidentalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T44937492A46440201. Available online at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/
Hatfield, R. G., & Jepsen, L. L. 2021. A conservation conundrum: protecting bumble bees under the California Endangered Species Act. California Fish and Wildlife Journal, 2021, CESA Special Issue, p. 98-106
Koch J.B, J.P. Strange, and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble Bees of the Western United States. Available online at: https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/documents/BumbleBeeGuideWestern2012.pdf Koch J.B., J. Lozier, J.P. Strange, H. Ikerd, T. Griswold, N. Cordes, L. Solter, I. Stewart, and S.A. Cameron. 2015. US Bombus, A Database of Contemporary Survey Data for North American Bumble Bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus) distributed in the United States. Biodiversity Data Journal 2015 (3):
e6833. Available online at: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e6833
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 230 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
Bumble Bee Survey Results 7
George Washington Park
The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for Food Safety. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus franklini), Suckley cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi), and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Available online at: https://www.xerces.org/publications The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2020. The Pacific Northwest Bumble Bee Atlas.

Available Online at: https://www.pnwbumblebeeatlas.org/ Thorp R.W., D.S. Horning, L.L. Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and Cuckoo bumble bees of California (Hymenoptera: Apidae) University of California Press; Berkley, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings of 29 Petitions. Federal Register 81(51) Pp. 14058-14072. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Survey Protocols for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bomus affinis) Version 2.2. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/rpbb/surveys.html U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. Western Bumblebee and Native Pollinator Research. Available Online at:
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/western-bumblebee-and-native-pollinator-research?qtscience_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects Williams, N. M., J. M. Mola, C. Stuligross, T. Harrison, M. L. Page, R. M. Brennan, N. M. Rosenberger, and M. Rundlof. 2019. Fantastic bees and where to find them: locating the cryptic overwintering queens of a western bumble bee. Ecosphere 10(11): e02949. Available online at:
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/21508925 Williams, P., R. Thorp, L. Richardson, and S. Colla. 2014. Bumble Bees of North America: An Identification Guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 209 pp.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 231 ends

ATTACHMENT A
Bumble Bee Photographs
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 232 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
A-1
Photo 1. June 18, 2024. Bumble bee on stinging phaecelia PGCC 2-19-25

Page 233 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
A-2
Photo 2. June 18, 2024. Bumble bee on stinging phaecelia PGCC 2-19-25

Page 234 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
A-3
Photo 3. June 18, 2024. Bumble bee on stinging phaecelia PGCC 2-19-25

Page 235 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
A-4
Photo 4. July 10, 2024. Bumble bee on grass stem
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 236 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
A-5
Photo 5. July 10, 2024. Bumble bee on grass stem (same individual as Photo 4) PGCC 2-19-25

Page 237 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates

APPENDIX G
Bat Survey Results Memo
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 238 ends

November 26, 2024
Nick Fisher
104 Claremont Terrace
Santa Cruz, California 95060
George Washington Park Project
Bat Survey Results Memo
This bat survey and results memorandum summarizes the methods and results; and provides conclusions and recommendations for George Washington Park in the City of Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California.

In accordance with the foundational Master Plan and the Forest Management Plan (Dudek, 2012), qualified bat specialist (biologist) Nick Fisher conducted surveys at George Washington Park, in Pacific Grove to determine bat species present and provide appropriate avoidance/minimization measures to be implemented during the proposed forest management activities. All four distinct management zones were surveyed, including the trees adjacent to the trail system and within the fire hazard reduction zone.

The biologist was provided maps within the project documents, by John Wandke (Senior Scientist, Denise Duffy & Associates) illustrating management zones in Map 1 and fire hazard zone in Map 2.

Methods
The bat roost survey was conducted in two phases—a daytime habitat assessment and a nighttime emergence survey completed by the biologist. The first phase involved a daytime habitat assessment (daytime survey) of the entire park to identify general potential bat roosting features including any suitable trees, snags, and structures. The daytime survey also identified locations with specific flyways and areas of higher bat roost suitability in order to inform the nighttime acoustic detection surveys.

The second phase involved nighttime emergence/foraging surveys (nighttime survey) which were utilized to determine the species of bats present and relative level of bat activity in the vicinity. These nighttime surveys were conducted seasonally. The survey timing was conducted during the breeding season (late March through September), during dispersal of maternity colonies (September through October) and after dispersal.

Prior to survey execution, on January 18, 2024, Nick Fisher (biologist) had a field meeting with John Wandke (Senior Scientist, Denise Duffy & Associates) at George Washington Park for a general orientation of the survey area, to discuss survey goals, and to assist in developing a scope for the surveys.

Daytime Survey
On June 6, 2024, the biologist conducted a daytime survey to assess trees and structures for bat usage and suitability.

Binoculars were utilized to visually inspect the exterior of trees for occupying bats; and signs of roosts, which include, guano, insect parts, and dead bats. Trees were also examined for PGCC 2-19-25

Page 239 ends

furrowed bark, hollows, and appropriate foliage. Any suitable features identified during the daytime habitat assessment survey were noted for further investigation.

Nighttime Survey
Nighttime surveys to determine species identification, and activity level were conducted. For nighttime surveys both active and passive methods of acoustic detection were employed. In the active method, the biologist with a handheld detector transected through the survey location during the emergence of bats early in the evening. For the passive method, a detector was located at a fixed location for the duration of the night without the biologist present.

On each survey night, a passive acoustic detector was positioned within one of the four management zones as depicted in Map 1. Also, on each survey night the biologist conducted a meandering pedestrian acoustic transect within two management zones utilizing the existing trail system, the fire hazard reduction zone, and overland travel. Each survey night, the transects were conducted within the same management zone as the passive detector and within an additional adjacent management zone in the following schedule:
• June 6, 2024: passive detector management zone 3, active detector management zones 3 and 4
• July 27, 2024: passive detector management zone 2, active detector management zones 1 and 2
• October 10, 2024: passive detector management zone 4, active detector- management zones 3 and 4
• November 18, 2024: passive detector management zone 1, active detector management zones 1 and 2
The nighttime surveys started at least 30 minutes prior to sunset and extended to one hour following sunset. The biologist was positioned with a clear view of the sky to observe the movement of bats as best as possible. Auditory frequencies in kilohertz (kHz) collected by the acoustic detectors were utilized by the biologist to identify the species of bat (when possible), and to identify behaviors, such as foraging and social calls. Additionally, acoustic detectors document the level of bat activity for a specific survey night within the vicinity of a sampling site or transect. Acoustic detectors utilized included one Wildlife Acoustics Song Meter Mini Bat unit for passive detection; and a Wildlife Acoustics Echometer 2 Pro and a Batbox Baton that allows the listener to hear the ultrasound produced by echolocating bats aiding in active detection.

Bat Survey Results
Daytime Survey
During the daytime habitat assessment, zones 2, 3, and 4 were determined to have higher bat roosting suitability than zone 1 due to the higher density of trees/snags, height, size class, and species. Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) was more dominant in zones 2, 3, and 4 than in zone 1.

In addition, Monterey pine rather than coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) was observed to have more suitable roosting features such as furrowed bark, woodpecker holes, cavities, and especially exfoliating bark. Also, Monterey pine had more standing snags that were taller than in zones 2, 3, and 4. Roosting bats tend to prefer larger and taller trees compared to random trees (Fabianek, et al., 2015). In contrast, zone 1 was dominated by coast live oak.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 240 ends

For the two potential bat roosting structures, the restroom and the baseball concession building, there were no bats or bat signs such as guano and bug parts observed on the interior or exterior.

Nighttime Survey
Bats were visually observed and acoustically detected during the year in three nighttime visits for the spring, summer and fall conducted on June 6, July 27, and October 10, 2024. The fourth late fall visit yielded no visual sightings, and no calls detected.

The ten bat species detected during the surveys include:

Vespertilionidae (evening bats)
• big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus)
• Western red bat (Lasiurus frantzii)
• silver-haired bat
(Lasionyteris noctavagans)
• hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus)
• California myotis (Myotis californicus)
• Western small-footed myotis
(Myotis ciliolabrum)
• little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus)
• Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis)
• Western pipistrelle
(Parastrellus hesperus)
Mollosidae (free-tailed bats)
• Mexican free-tailed bat
(Tadarida braziliensis)
For acoustic monitoring as documented in Table 1, a total of 1,121 calls were recorded during the year, most of the calls were recorded in the spring (461 calls) and summer (469 calls). In contrast, for the fall fewer calls were recorded (191 calls) and late fall zero calls were recorded.

Visual observations indicate the majority of the bats were foraging and transiting around trees on the trail system especially away from the edge of the forest and streets.

Conclusions
Habitat
The habitat quality of George Washington Park is of medium quality, due to an abundance of trees and snags with suitable roost features such as exfoliating bark, woodpecker holes, crevices, and cavities. However, there was a lack of water features such as creeks and ponds within the park for bats to drink and the surrounding area is developed residential homes which lacks optimal connectivity to other forested areas. Due to an abundance of higher quality tree features, zones 2, 3, and 4 are more suitable for bats than zone 1. For the size of the forest stand within the park, there is an exceptional amount of bat activity.

The overall bat activity was fairly high in the spring and summer with the total number of calls during each of these two visits remarkably similar. Activity dropped off in the fall, due to the time of year when bat activity slows down at the tail end of the maternity and pup-rearing season.

In general, the trail system is a good flyway and forage location for bats, especially on the interior of the forest away from the edge and streets.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 241 ends

Special Status Species
No bats species in California are currently listed as federal or state threatened or endangered.

Certain species of bats are listed as California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) species of special concern.

Another state protection is the California Fish and Game Code which states; FGC § 4012 (a) A mammal occurring naturally in California that is not a game mammal, fully protected mammal, or fur-bearing mammal is a nongame mammal. A nongame mammal may not be taken or possessed except as provided in this code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission.

Westen red bat was the only species of special concern that was detected during the survey.

Only one call was recorded for this species in the fall detected during fall migration.

Pallid bats call in the range of 30 kHz and there were a few ambiguous calls documented that may represent this species, therefore making it possible that pallid bats utilize the park.

Townsend’s big-eared bat is unlikely to roost within the park. Due to the lack of bats or bat signs observed on the interior or exterior such as guano and bug parts, structures including the restroom and baseball concessions building were deemed unsuitable for bats. The structures are ruled out for Townsends’s big eared bat habitat, since these bats utilize buildings or large cave-like cavities. These types of cavities are lacking within the tree stands, however, not every tree was examined for hollows within the park.

Incidental species encountered include mule deer, coyote, great-horned owl, pygmy nuthatch, acorn woodpecker, dark-eyed junco, house finch, lesser goldfinch, American crow, spotted towhee, chestnut-backed chickadee, song sparrow, Nutall’s woodpecker, downy woodpecker, California towhee, and Anna’s hummingbird.

Two project area maps, photographs, and a table of bats detected during the survey effort follow the text below.

Recommendations

1. When possible, leave snags in place and remove only the tops of trees to provide habitat for bats.

2. Except in cases of emergencies, limit tree removal and trimming activities outside bat maternity season (April 15 through August 31) for special status species as designated by CDFW. When possible, tree removal and trimming should take place after the young are volant, between September 1 through November 1 and after hibernation, March 1 through April 15.

3. If tree removal/trimming cannot take place during dispersal, September 1 through November 1, a qualified biologist should investigate trees for signs of bats and/or roosting bats prior to tree removal/trimming activities. Methods employed by the biologist should be visual and include acoustic monitoring to determine species, number, and roost status.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 242 ends

a. If no bats are observed roosting within the trees slated for removal, no further recommendations are warranted.
b. If bats are present in a tree and it is found that an active maternity roost of a colonial roosting species is present, the roost shall not be disturbed during the maternity season (April 15 to August 31) or until the maternity roost has dispersed. A suitable buffer should be installed for avoidance. i. If the maternity roost tree must be removed within the maternity season the biologist will formulate a bat exclusion plan in conjunction with CDFW.

4. If trees removal/trimming must occur during hibernation, November 2 through February 28, a qualified biologist shall investigate trees for bat habitat prior to tree removal/trimming activities.
a. If potential bat habitat is present, consult with CDFW.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 243 ends

Map 1.

Project Boundary
Park Zone
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2021, Monterey County
0 Date: 6/10/2022 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1367601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\FMP\Figure3_ProjectSite.mxd PGCC 2-19-25

Page 244 ends

Map 2.

Project Boundary
George Washington Park
Adjacent Structure
Fire Hazard Reduction Zone
Date: 6/10/2022 Last saved by: rstrobridge
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 245 ends

Photograph 1: A representative view facing west within zone 3 of George Washington Park during an initial orientation. Note the space around the trail which is conducive for a bat flyway.

Photograph 2: A northeast view bat suitable snags within zone 1 in George Washington Park which was dominated by Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) during the daytime survey.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 246 ends

Photograph 3: A northeast view of zone 1 which was dominated by Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Note photograph taken during the daytime survey.

Photograph 4: A view of the baseball concession building in zone 2 that was determined to be unsuitable for bats.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 247 ends

Photograph 5: A representative view of zone 2 and placement of a passive acoustic bat detector during the nighttime survey. Note the bat detector in the top of the stump camouflaged in lichen.

Photograph 6: A representative view of zone 4 and placement of a passive acoustic bat detector during the nighttime survey. Note the bat detector in the fallen tree camouflaged in lichen and sticks.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 248 ends

Photograph 7: A representative view of zone 1 and placement of a passive acoustic bat detector during the nighttime survey. Note the bat detector on the top corner of the dugout roof.

Photograph 8: A representative view of the north end of zone 4 and the border of the fire hazard reduction zone.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 249 ends

Table 1
Acoustic Bat Detections within the Vicinity of Survey Sites for George Washington Park Date
Number of
Detections Species or Acoustic Frequency1
Management Zone 3, Passive (Song Meter Mini Bat Detector) June 6, 2024 50 Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus)
June 6, 2024 1 Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) June 6, 2024 1 Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus)
June 6, 2024 119 California myotis (Myotis californicus) June 6, 2024 1 Small footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum) June 6, 2024 2 Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis)
June 6, 2024 2 Western pipistrelle (Parastrellus Hesperus) June 6, 2024 2 Unidentified calls in the 30 (kHz) frequency group Management Zone 3 & 4, Active (Echo Meter 2 Pro Bat Detector) June 6, 2024 93 Big brown bat
June 6, 2024 17 Silver-haired bat
June 6, 2024 99 California myotis
June 6, 2024 2 Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida braziliensis) June 6, 2024 1 Unidentified calls in the 20 (kHz) frequency group June 6, 2024 71 Unidentified calls in the 30 (kHz) frequency group June 6, 2024 461 Total number of calls for both detectors during visit Management Zone 2, Passive (Song Meter Mini Bat Detector) July 27, 2024 91 Big brown bat
1 Recorded echolocations that were not identified to species are reported as their frequency in kilohertz (kHz).

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 250 ends

Acoustic Bat Detections within the Vicinity of Survey Sites for George Washington Park Date
Number of
Detections Species or Acoustic Frequency1
July 27, 2024 149 Silver-haired bat
July 27, 2024 1 Hoary bat
July 27, 2024 6 California myotis
July 27, 2024 20 Unidentified calls in the 30 (kHz) frequency group July 27, 2024 2 Unidentified calls in the 40 (kHz) frequency group Management Zone 1 & 2, Active (Echo Meter 2 Pro Bat Detector) July 27, 2024 51 Big brown bat
July 27, 2024 30 Silver-haired bat
July 27, 2024 16 California myotis
July 27, 2024 16 Mexican free-tailed bat
July 27, 2024 86 Unidentified calls in the 30 (kHz) frequency group July 27, 2024 1 Unidentified calls in the 50 (kHz) frequency group July 27, 2024 469 Total number of calls for both detectors during visit Management Zone 4, Passive (Song Meter Mini Bat Detector) October 10, 2024 15 Hoary bat
October 10, 2024 21 Silver-haired bat
October 10, 2024 14 California myotis
October 10, 2024 9 Western pipistrelle
October 10, 2024 5 Mexican free-tailed bat
October 10, 2024 3 Unidentified calls in the 20 (kHz) frequency group October 10, 2024 3 Unidentified calls in the 40 (kHz) frequency group October 10, 2024 1 Unidentified calls in the 50 (kHz) frequency group Management Zone 3 & 4, Active (Echo Meter 2 Pro Bat Detector) PGCC 2-19-25

Page 251 ends

Acoustic Bat Detections within the Vicinity of Survey Sites for George Washington Park Date
Number of
Detections Species or Acoustic Frequency1
October 10, 2024 4 Big brown bat
October 10, 2024 1 Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) October 10, 2024 23 Hoary bat
October 10, 2024 15 Silver-haired bat
October 10, 2024 4 California myotis
October 10, 2024 27 Small footed myotis
October 10, 2024 2 Little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus)
October 10, 2024 8 Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis)
October 10, 2024 5 Western pipistrelle (Parastrellus Hesperus) October 10, 2024 7 Mexican free-tailed bat
October 10, 2024 5 Unidentified calls in the 20 (kHz) frequency group October 10, 2024 6 Unidentified calls in the 30 (kHz) frequency group October 10, 2024 4 Unidentified calls in the 40 (kHz) frequency group October 10, 2024 9 Unidentified calls in the 50 (kHz) frequency group October 10, 2024 191 Total number of calls for both detectors during visit Management Zone 1, Passive (Song Meter Mini Bat Detector) November 18, 2024 0 No calls were recorded
Management Zone 1 & 2, Active (Echo Meter 2 Pro Bat Detector) November 18, 2024 0 No calls were recorded
November 18, 2024 0 Total number of calls for both detectors during visit 1121 Total number of calls for all visits
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 252 ends

Literature Cited
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2018). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Government version dated October 2024. Retrieved November 25, 2024, from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Dudek. 2022. Forest Management Plan George Washington Park prepared for the City of Pacific Grove, California, 53 pp.

Fabianek F, Simard MA, Desrochers A. 2015. Exploring Regional Variation in Roost Selection by Bats: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015 Sep 29;10(9): e0139126. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139126. PMID: 26418465; PMCID: PMC4587962.

Kunz, T. H., and S. Parsons (Eds.). 2009. Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats. 2nd Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 901 pp
Natural Resources Committee and City Forester, Ono, Frank. 1999. Final Draft Master Plan for George Washinton Park, City of Pacific Grove, 23 pp PGCC 2-19-25

Page 253 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates

APPENDIX H
Wetland Data Sheets
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 254 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: George Washington Park City/County: Pacific Grove/Monterey County Sampling Date: 07/16/2024 Applicant/Owner: City of Pacific Grove State: CA Sampling Point: 1A Investigator(s): JW Section, Township, Range: 00, T15S, R1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 36.61931 Long: -121.929492 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Baywood Sand NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:

Sample point located in a topographic low area, approximately 100 feet north of baseball field. Area collects more runoff than adjacent areas due to its landscape position, but lacks dominant wetland vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology indicators.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
FAC species 75 x 3 = 225
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 35 x 5 = 175
Column Totals: 120 (A) 420 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.5
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index ≤3.0¹
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. Pinus radiata / Monterey pine 10 Yes NI

2. Quercus agrifolia / Coast live oak, Coast live oak, Encina 5 Yes NI

3. Acacia longifolia / Golden wattle, Sydney golden wattle 5 Yes NI

4. 20 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 0 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Holcus lanatus / Common velvetgrass, Common velvet grass 30 Yes FAC

2. Lolium perenne / Perennial rye grass 30 Yes FAC

3. Carex praegracilis / Field sedge, Black creeper or freeway sedge 10 No FACW

4. Briza maxima / Rattlesnake grass, Rattlesnake grass, Large quaking grass 10 No NI

5. Ehrharta erecta / Upright veldt grass, Panic veldt grass 5 No NI

6. 7.

8. 85 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. Rubus ursinus / California blackberry 15 Yes FAC

2. 15 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

Facultative plant species present, but the dominance test is not met.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 255 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 1A
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 100 Sandy Loam
12-18 10YR 5/3 98 5YR 4/6 2 C M Sandy Loam
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

Redox features present in soil sample, but soil profile does not meet depth requirements of any of the hydric soil indicators.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Wetland hydrology indicators absent. Location may experience periods of saturation during wet winter periods, but not of sufficient duration for formation of hydrology indicators.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 256 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: George Washington Park City/County: Pacific Grove/Monterey County Sampling Date: 07/16/2024 Applicant/Owner: City of Pacific Grove State: CA Sampling Point: 1B Investigator(s): JW Section, Township, Range: 00, T15S, R1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 36.619365 Long: -121.929465 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Baywood Sand NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:

Sample is located in a landscape position several feet higher than sample 1A.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20.0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 9 x 3 = 27
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
UPL species 140 x 5 = 700
Column Totals: 159 (A) 767 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.82
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. Pinus radiata / Monterey pine 30 Yes NI

2. Quercus agrifolia / Coast live oak, Coast live oak, Encina 20 Yes NI

3. 4.
50 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 0 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Briza maxima / Rattlesnake grass, Rattlesnake grass, Large quaking grass 90 Yes NI

2. Holcus lanatus / Common velvetgrass, Common velvet grass 2 No FAC

3. Lolium perenne / Perennial rye grass 2 No FAC

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 94 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. Toxicodendron diversilobum / Poison oak, Western poison oak 10 Yes FACU

2. Rubus ursinus / California blackberry 5 Yes FAC
15 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

Vegetation is typical of Monterey pine forest
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 257 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 1B
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-6 7.5YR 3/1 100 Sandy Loam
6-14 2.5Y 4/3 100 Sndy Clay Lm
14-18 10YR 7/2 100 Sand
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

No hydric indicators or redox features present.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Wetland hydrology is absent.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 258 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: George Washington Park City/County: Pacific Grove/Monterey County Sampling Date: 07/16/2024 Applicant/Owner: City of Pacific Grove State: CA Sampling Point: 2A Investigator(s): JW Section, Township, Range: 00, T15S, R1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 36.61922708 Long: -121.92923498 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Narlon loamy fine sand NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:

Sample location in topographic low area. Area may experience seasonal periods of saturation, which promotes the presence of some facultative plant species, but is not sufficient to create wetland conditions.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40.0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 60 x 3 = 180
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
UPL species 70 x 5 = 350
Column Totals: 140 (A) 570 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.07
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. Acacia longifolia / Golden wattle, Sydney golden wattle 20 Yes NI

2. Quercus agrifolia / Coast live oak, Coast live oak, Encina 10 Yes NI

3. 4.
30 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 0 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Holcus lanatus / Common velvetgrass, Common velvet grass 30 Yes FAC

2. Lolium perenne / Perennial rye grass 30 Yes FAC

3. Elymus glaucus / Blue wildrye, Blue or western wild-rye 10 No FACU

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 70 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. Rubus ursinus / California blackberry 40 Yes

2. 40 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

Hydrophytic vegetation is not dominant. Vegetation is typical of Monterey pine forest.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 259 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 2A
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 2/2 100 Sandy Loam
10-18 10YR 5/3 100 Sand
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

Soil lacks hydric indicators

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Hydrology indicators are absent
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 260 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: George Washington Park City/County: Pacific Grove/Monterey County Sampling Date: 07/16/2024 Applicant/Owner: City of Pacific Grove State: CA Sampling Point: 2B Investigator(s): JW Section, Township, Range: 00, T15S, R1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 36.61929191 Long: -121.92917666 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Baywood Sand NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:

Sample location in landscape position several feet higher than sample 2A.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 5 x 3 = 15
FACU species 25 x 4 = 100
UPL species 110 x 5 = 550
Column Totals: 140 (A) 665 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.75
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. Pinus radiata / Monterey pine 30 Yes NI

2. 3.

4. 30 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. Toxicodendron diversilobum / Poison oak, Western poison oak 20 Yes FACU

2. 3.

4. 5.
20 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Briza maxima / Rattlesnake grass, Rattlesnake grass, Large quaking grass 80 Yes NI

2. Lolium perenne / Perennial rye grass 5 No FAC

3. Elymus glaucus / Blue wildrye, Blue or western wild-rye 5 No FACU

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 90 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

Vegetation is typical of Monterey pine forest.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 261 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 2B
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 4/3 100 Sandy Loam
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

Hydric soil indicators are absent.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Hydrology indicators are absent.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 262 ends

Agenda Reports Related to George Washington Park 2019 to Date Date Hearing Body RECOMMENDATION /REPORT LINK
May 1, 2019 BNRC
Receive the February 19, 2019, Draft George
Washington Park Report of the Subcommittee of the
BNRC and authorize staff to proceed with the
recommended maintenance activities.

September 18, 2019 City Council
Provide direction for George Washington Park forest
and fire management and authorize a qualified Forest
Management Consultant to provide short and long
term recommendations for park management.

July 1, 2020 City Council Receive a report on George Washington Park wildfire risk and action plan.

July 21, 2020 BNRC Continue with subcommittees' park oversight with regards to recommendations identified below.

March 16, 2021 BNRC Receive March 2021 report of the George Washington Park Subcommittee.

August 4, 2021 City Council
Authorize an agreement with Dudek for Development
of the George Washington Park Management Plan in
an amount not to exceed $45,880.

October 19, 2021 BNRC Approve and forward this report to the City Council as our annual update
December 21, 2021 BNRC Receive report regarding volunteer efforts in GWP January 18, 2022 BNRC Discuss and accept report regarding volunteer efforts October 12, 2022 BNRC

1. Receive Report and provide comments

2. Recommend the City Council Adopt the George
Washington Park Forest Management Plan
September 6, 2023 City Council

1. Receive the 2022 George Washington Park
Forest Management Plan (FMP) and provide
direction.

2. Direct staff to proceed with developing a
multi-seasonal biological assessment for all
zones of the park (1-4)

3. Authorize maintenance activities consistent
with the approved 1999 GWP Master Plan until
a new plan is developed and approved.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 263 ends

4. Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.

September 19, 2023 BNRC
Send a Recommendation to Council to approve that
the Tree and Landscape Subcommittee work with
Public Works collaboratively on all future maintenance
and enhancements in George Washington Park.

November 15, 2023 City Council

1. Authorize an agreement with Denise Duffy and
Associates, Inc. for the George Washington
Park Biotic Surveys and Biological Resources
Report in an amount not to exceed $31,108
plus a 10% contingency.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.

July 17, 2024 City Council

1. That the City Council pass a resolution
adopting the Community Wildfire Protection
Plan.

2. Direct the City Manager to take alternative
action related to this item.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 264 ends

Agenda No. 12 C

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: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Pine Ave & Fountain Ave – Traffic Engineering Study & All-Way Stop at Fountain/Pine Moved behind George Washington Park agenda item.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the engineered plans for installation of all-way stop control at Fountain and Pine

2. Receive the attached presentation prepared by Kimley Horn

3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action

DISCUSSION

BACKGROUND
The City Council allocated funds in the FY23/24 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for safety improvements near Robert Down Elementary School on Pine Avenue. After an evaluation by the Traffic Engineer, recommendations were presented and approved, including relocating a stop sign and adding signage and street markings as part of the 23/24 Crack and Slurry Seal Project. Improvements implemented in May 2024 include:

Pine & Fountain Intersection Changes:
· Relocate all-way stop control from Pine/Fountain to Pine/15th St · Remove crosswalks across Pine at Fountain
Pine & 15th Street Intersection Changes:
· New fully controlled school crosswalk at Pine/15th St · New red-flashing stop signs to increase visibility
· Reduction of unnecessary signs
· Adjusted lane widths to improve driver visibility
After receiving concerns about the stop sign relocation from the Robert Down school community and City Council discussions, further evaluations were conducted by the Traffic Engineer in August and September 2024. A presentation on the project’s progress was given to the City Council on September 18, 2024, leading to a directive for staff to collaborate with the School District and Traffic Safety Commission for further feedback and future actions.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 265 ends

At the November 6, 2024, City Council meeting, staff returned with the Traffic Safety Commission and the PGUSD Joint Subcommittee’s feedback. Ultimately, Council directed staff:

1. Install a four-way stop at Pine Ave & Fountain Ave

2. Work with PGUSD to add a crossing guard at Pine Ave and Fountain Ave

3. Initiate a traffic engineering assessment performed by Kimley-Horn

4. Review Complete Streets Plans for Pine Ave
This agenda report is intended to provide an update on the City Council’s November 6, 2024, direction.

Plan Set for Installation of All-Way Stop
A plan for the implementation of the all-way stop at Pine Ave & Fountain Ave has been prepared by the City’s Traffic Engineer (Attachment 1). Staff will implement the stop sign and cross walk installation following City Council approval of the engineered plan set.

Public Education
To ensure the public has adequate notice of the changes to the stop sign and crosswalk locations on Pine Ave, electronic signboards have been placed on Pine Ave to prompt drivers about upcoming changes.

Information will also be disseminated via social media and the City Manager’s Report following approval of this agenda item.

Kimley-Horn Traffic Engineering Assessment
A traffic assessment was performed by Kimley-Horn in December 2024. A presentation of the assessment is included as Attachment 2. The assessment includes observations and data, field visit notes, photos, and recommendations. This assessment will inform potential pilot projects and future Complete Street design improvements for Pine Ave in the vacinity of Robert Down Elementary School.

Below are the summaries of alternative recommendations that resulted from the Kimley-Horn engineering assessment. These alternatives will be discussed in great detail with the Traffic Safety Commission and the City Council should the Council approve a CIP project for Pine Ave improvements in the upcoming budget process.
· 2-LANE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
· Reduce one lane in each direction along Pine Ave and add complete streets elements (Bike lanes and pedestrian median refuge)
· Maintain side street stop control at Pine Ave & Fountain Ave · 15th St – apply similar improvements as 13th St
· Remove east/west stop control
· Upgrade rectangular rapid-flashing beacons
· Add advanced yield triangles
· Add pedestrian crossing ahead signs and pavement markings · Add no u-turn signs and construct raised median from Fountain Ave to 12th St. · Add teacher/volunteer to manage student pickup/drop off · Consider crossing guard for 13th St crossing
· Add permanent curb extensions on all corners from 12th St to Fountain Ave · 4-LANE ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
· Maintain side street stop control at Pine Ave & Fountain Ave · Add no u-turn signs and construct raised median from Fountain Ave to 12th St. · Add teacher/volunteer to manage student pickup/drop off · Consider crossing guard for 13th St crossing
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 266 ends

· Add permanent curb extensions on all corners from 12th St to Fountain Ave · 15th St – apply similar improvements as 13th St
· Remove east/west stop control
· Add rectangular rapid-flashing beacons
· Add advanced yield triangles
· Add pedestrian crossing ahead signs and pavement markings

NEXT STEPS
Per council direction, in-house crews will implement the addition of an all-way stop and Pine and Fountain.

Staff will use the alternative recommendations from the Kimley-Horn engineering assessment to help shape a future CIP project and will continue to engage with TAMC on the potential for a pilot project at this location.

OPTIONS

1. Provide alternative direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report. Installation of the stop sign at Pine Avenue and Fountain Avenue can be implemented through the Public Works operation budget.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Pine & Fountain Avenue Stop Sign Layout
Pine Avenue Crosswalk Study
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 267 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 268 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 269 ends

Pine Ave Crosswalk Study
City of Pacific Grove
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 270 ends

Study Corridor
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 271 ends

Recent Changes
2023
2024
East & West
Stops Removed
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 272 ends

PG MS Bell
– 8:30am & 3:00pm
RHD ES Bell – 8:40am & 3:15pm
PG MS Bell – 8:30am & 2:00pm
PG MS Bell – 8:30am & 3:00pm RHD ES Bell
– 8:40am & 2:00pm
RHD ES Bell – 8:40am & 3:15pm
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 273 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 274 ends

8:15-8:45am Forest Ave Fountain Ave 15th St 13th St
Pine Ave
4 11 0 0 51 0 71 0
Robert H Down ES
3:00-3:30pm Forest Ave Fountain Ave 15th St 13th St
Pine Ave
15 25 7 0 95 0 56 0
Robert H Down ES
Pine Ave Pedestrian Crossings
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 275 ends

Multi-way Stop Warrant
Major Street (Pine)
Vehicles Vehicles Pedestrians Bicyclists Combined
7:45-8:45 AM 329 61 4 0 65
8:45-9:45 AM 213 26 4 0 30
11:15-12:15 PM 261 32 0 0 32
12:30-1:30 PM 231 37 0 0 37
1:30-2:30 PM 238 39 1 0 40
2:30-3:30 PM 321 44 7 4 55
3:45-4:45 PM 289 48 0 2 50
4:45-5:45 PM 285 44 8 3 55
Average 271 41 3 1 46
Required 300 - - - 200
No - - - No
Time Period Minor Street (Fountain)
Pine Ave & Fountain Ave Stop Warrant
Warrant Met?
No
Major Street (Pine)
Vehicles Vehicles* Pedestrians Bicyclists Combined
7:45-8:45 AM 257 6 60 0 66
10:15-11:15 AM 205 0 0 0 12
11:15-12:15 PM 269 0 0 0 0
12:30-1:30 PM 248 0 0 0 0
1:30-2:30 PM 245 1 19 0 20
2:30-3:30 PM 326 5 98 0 103
3:45-4:45 PM 293 11 23 0 34
4:45-5:45 PM 294 7 20 0 27
Average 267 4 28 0 33
Required 300 - - - 200
No - - - No
*EBL volumes used since 15th St is one-way away from Pine Ave Pine Ave & 15th St Stop Warrant
Time Period Minor Street (15th)
Warrant Met?
No
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 276 ends

Field Visit Notes - December 10, 2024
General Operations

1. Crossing guard present at 15th St stop/crosswalk only.

2. Dual lane crossing obstructed sight lines.

3. No other police/teacher/volunteers directing pick
up/drop off.

4. Witnessed very few pedestrian crossings still being
made at Fountain Ave.

5. Several rolling stops and/or going through stop at 15th St, especially outside of peak pedestrian crossing times.

6. Pickup and drop off experiences minimal congestion
and does not block through traffic.

7. Police action was witnessed on several occasions for uturns, rolling stops and double parking. 15th St Crossing Guard Operations
The combination of the crossing guard, RRFB and stop sign creates confusion with drivers and potentially pedestrians. Stop, yield and go messages are being portrayed to the traveling public which is a concern. The stop sign flashes consistently, while the pedestrian warning sign only flashes when push activated. When the crossing guard was present, they would push activate the pedestrian warning sign flashers and then walk out to the middle of the street with a stop sign paddle. Once they returned to the curb and the pedestrian warning sign flashers stopped, subsequent vehicles were witnessed rolling through the stop sign due to the confusion of signs and flashers.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 277 ends

Field Visit Notes - December 10, 2024
Infrastructure
15th St

1. Pedestrian warning sign with flashers still present with stop sign

2. Flashers within stop signs are not bright enough in sunlight

3. In-pavement flashers are depressed but operational
13th St

1. Pedestrian warning sign behind tree

2. Striped and delineated bulb outs adds to the visibility to pedestrians
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 278 ends

Fountain Ave
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 279 ends

15th St
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 280 ends

13th St
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 281 ends

2-Lane Preferred Alternative Recommendations

1. Reduce one lane in each direction along Pine Ave and add complete streets elements. a) Bike lanes
b) Pedestrian median refuge

2. Maintain side street stop control at Pine Ave & Fountain Ave

3. 15th St – apply similar improvements as 13th St
a) Remove east/west stop control
b) Upgrade rectangular rapid-flashing beacons
c) Add advanced yield triangles
d) Add pedestrian crossing ahead signs and pavement markings

4. Add no u-turn signs and construct raised median from Fountain Ave to 12th St.

5. Add teacher/volunteer to manage student pickup/drop off.

6. Consider crossing guard for 13th St crossing.

7. Add permanent curb extensions on all corners from 12th St to Fountain Ave.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 282 ends

4-Lane Alternative Recommendations

1. Maintain side street stop control at Pine Ave & Fountain Ave

2. Add no u-turn signs and construct raised median from Fountain Ave to 12th St.

3. Add teacher/volunteer to manage student pickup/drop off.

4. Consider crossing guard for 13th St crossing.

5. Add permanent curb extensions on all corners from 12th St to Fountain Ave.

6. 15th St – apply similar improvements as 13th St
a) Remove east/west stop control
b) Add rectangular rapid-flashing beacons
c) Add advanced yield triangles
d) Add pedestrian crossing ahead signs and pavement markings PGCC 2-19-25

Page 283 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 284 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 285 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 286 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 287 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 288 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 289 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 290 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 291 ends

Agenda No. 13 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert Perrault, Consultant
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Goal Setting Process for the FY 25-26 and the FY 26-27 Budget Years CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Review and Approve the Goal Setting Workplan Development Process as this report outlines.

DISCUSSION
Discussion and Background:

Periodic development of achievable and obtainable goals and their subsequent review is a significant activity for the Council to complete. A well-thought-out set of goals provides a framework for the direction and operation of the City. Goal setting and review are important activities to complete before the annual budget process. A proper set of goals will guide budget shaping and development. Once approved, the budget becomes the operational tool to ensure that City capacity is put in place to create the best opportunity for the City to complete its goals. City Manager Mogensen asked for my assistance in facilitating this year’s process.

In the spring of 2022, the Council completed a goal-setting process for a two-year cycle. The goals were also reviewed at the midpoint in the cycle during the spring of 2024. The resulting Community Goals & Workplan 2023-25 is attached. As you will note this Workplan was based on four key core areas including:

1. Recreation Services

2. Infrastructure

3. Environmental Stewardship and

4. Housing.

The core areas contained 2-3 goals and then identified several milestones or implementing projects with identified completion dates. I think it is important to begin any new goal development process with a brief update and review of the existing Work Plan. This review will take place during the Council Workshop now scheduled for February 26th.

Drafting new Goals and a Work Plan:

It is recommended the Council use a building block approach to developing new Goal Statements and Workplan. The City already has adopted key Vision and Mission Statements:

Vision Statement: “Pacific Grove will thoughtfully grow as an inclusive seaside community that PGCC 2-19-25

Page 292 ends

Vision Statement: “Pacific Grove will thoughtfully grow as an inclusive seaside community that protects residential character, historic resources, promotes multi-beneficial development, and ensures respect for the environment”.

Mission Statement: “Deliver quality professional public services to all residents in the Pacific Grove Community and the region while ensuring high-value quality results.” As noted the existing Workplan focused on 4 core areas. I would suggest the Council follow the approach of identifying 4 or 5 focus areas tied to the Vision and Mission statements. The focus areas could replicate the existing focus areas or identify new ones. Based on my discussions with individual staff and Council members I would offer the following for consideration:

Climate Action Plan
Economic Development
Complete Streets
Infrastructure and Asset (buildings) repair and enhancement Financial Sustainability
Organization Capacity
Communication
As a part of the process, the Council will be asked to develop proposed goal statements for the core areas selected and a milestone project for goal Implementation. The development of goal statements should be specific doable and measurable. Some goal statements and milestone projects may take longer to complete and may require incremental progress over some time. The bottom line is the goal and any milestone projects should be achievable within a forseeable horizon. The number of goal statements and related milestone projects should be limited so as not to overtax the City’s capacity.

There is always a danger of overpromising and then falling short in completion. Failure to achieve goals can be very frustrating for both the City team members and the general public. An example of a focus area goal state, and milestone project is noted below:

Example:

Core area: Economic Development
City Council Goal Statement: Milestone Project Date
Develop and implement strategies to encourage Reduce time for permit 4th Q FY 25-26
Business retention and new business location Review and Issuance Once the Workplan is adopted it will be important to review progress regularly. The review should be conducted along with periodic budget reviews by the Council since the Goal Workplan and budget are so closely related. This review will enable an evaluation of Goal progress and the possible need to modify the Plan as may be necessary to address the realities of implementation.

The Goal Statement Work plan and budget should be used as living documents and as such changes may become necessary. At the staff level, the Goals and Work plan should be constantly reviewed for any deviations. Deviations should be brought to the City Manager’s attention in a timely fashion and options for corrective action analyzed. Getting things done requires focus, being realistic, constant communication, and staying on track.

Cities are by their nature are dynamic and there is a vested interest in trying to solve problems proactively. Consequently, issues, problems and new ideals will come up and will need to be addressed.

In some cases, the workplan/ budget will need to be modified and priorities shuffled to accommodate the emerging issue resolution. It is important always to keep in mind the capacity of the organization is finite. Before undertaking a new task or initiative it is suggested the following criteria be kept in mind:

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 293 ends

finite. Before undertaking a new task or initiative it is suggested the following criteria be kept in mind:

Is the Initiative/ Idea in keeping with the City’s Vision and Goal Statements? Is the initiative/idea related to the existing Goals and Workplan Is the idea or initiative related to an emergency?
Is there outside funding that needs to be captured and the timing important? Is there a new multi-agency opportunity that is time-sensitive and critical to local government? There is also a tendency for the government to maintain more than one “to-do list” that is often different or in addition to the City’s adopted Goals Work plan and budget. At present the City maintains a Consolidated Workplan Priorities list ( please see attachment b) and a Capital Project Listing ( please see attachment c). Efforts should be made to ensure these documents are in conformance with and related to the existing approved Workplan and Budget.

Dates and Tasks for Completing Goals and Workplan:

The following is a listing and dates to be completed:

1. February 19- Council to Approve Process. Following the facilitator's presentation, the public comment Council approves the process with direction to move forward.

2. February 26- Council Workshop on Background Information. Council receives presentations from staff on the status of the existing Workplan and department-by-department updates including current challenges and opportunities.

3. March 5- Mid-year Report and Request to Council to Develop Draft Goal Statements for Inclusion in new Workplan. The City Manager and Finance Department staff will present a mid-year review and year-end projections for revenues and expenditures. The facilitator will provide the Council with an assignment to develop draft Goal Statements for further consideration.

4. March 12- Council members Draft Goal Statements Submitted to the City Manager.

Council members’ candidate goals are submitted to the City Manager/facilitator to review to avoid repetition and to ensure language consistency.

5. March 19- Council Reviews Draft Goal Statements. Following Public Comment Candidate Goal Statement are reviewed and finalized for further public review and discussion. A finalized list of Goal statements will be released for public review.

6. April 2- Prioritization of Goals and Finalization of Goals and Workplan – Following review of public comment the Council will be asked to (1) Prioritize and finalize Goals for inclusion in the FY 25-26, FY 26-27 Work Plan.

Public and Council Committee Involvement:

Public comment and involvement will be fostered as noted at various stages outlined in this report.

Council Commissions and Committees have been asked to forward their top Goal recommendations to the Council for possible inclusion in the Work Plan.

OPTIONS
The Council could modify this process as presented and direct Staff and the facilitator to proceed accordingly.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no direct impact simply by completing this process. However, the completion of the process PGCC 2-19-25

Page 294 ends

There is no direct impact simply by completing this process. However, the completion of the process will guide the development of the Budget over the next two years.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
A. Current Work Plan
B. Workplan Priorities Listing
C. Capital Project Listing
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 295 ends

New Mandate Goal Milestone
Quarter of
Completion Lead Dept Status
Percnt
Complete Additional Notes
Submit comprehensive recreation plan to City Council for expanded services, activities and programs; receive Council input.(Plan components include:
recruitment strategy, proposed budget including additional FT and Seasonal PT employee hours, expanded hours of operation for all recreational facilities including the Lighthouse. Q4 FY22/23
Rec/PW
/CMO /ASD Complete 100%
Comprehensive plan presented to the Council in May
2023.

Recruit and onboard additional Seasonal PTE (current and expanded summer 2023 programming). Q4 FY22/23
Rec/PW/C
MO Complete 100%
Onboarded 53 summer staff members (2x the prior
year)
Recruit and onboard additional FTE. Ql FY23/24
Rec/PW/C
MO Complete 100% All FTE positions filled.

Complete implementation of comprehensive recreation plan (that includes expanding hours, activities and services for the community). Ql FY23/24 Rec/PW/C
MO
Complete,
Ongoing 100%
122% increase in swim registration, 27% increase in
summer camp registration, new program offerings
(sports & gold camp).

YES NO Expand or reinstate afterschool and recreational activities, including recreation and sports programs. Same milestones as above. Q4 FY22/23 Rec/PW/C
MO Complete 100% Expanded beyond pre-pandemic opertations.

Assess facility rental fees and submit new proposed fee schedule to the City Council for consideration. Ql FY24/25 ASD/Rec Complete 100% Updated User Fee Schedule adopted on September
4, 2024
Implement new fee schedule. Ql FY24/25 ASD/Rec Complete 100% Updated User Fee Schedule adopted on September
4, 2024 and implemented
New Mandate Goal Milestone
Quarter of
Completion Lead Dept Status
Percent
Complete Additional Notes
Select consultant to recommend a new approach for Capital Improvement Program, including the development of asset management schedules, recommended funding and prioritization to address ongoing repair and replacement of City facilities, assets and infrastructure. Select a consultant to develop asset management schedules and recommended funding to address repair and replacement of City facilities, assets and infrastructure as part of defining a new approach to CIP process. Q2 FY24/25

PW/ASD/C
MO Complete 100%
Facility Condition Assessments (FCA) completef for
City Hall, Public Works, Youth Center, Fire and
Police Stations. Additional assessments to be
budgeted in future years.

Implement recommendations for the development and adoption of a new Capital Improvement Plan. effective July 1, 2024, including a new asset management program Q2 FY24/25

PW/ASD/C
MO Initiated 50%
FCAs will inform next years CIP. Working with
ASD/CMO to revise the CIP process for FY25/26
Retain the services of a qualified firm to assess the City's multi-modal transportation network, including all associated transportation policies and the proposed general plan transportation element, and to draft a Complete Streets Policy and safe routes to school map - specific to the needs of the Pacific Grove community. Q2 FY24/25 PW/COO Initiated 50%
No proposals received to RFP released in May 2024.

Alternatives being considered.

Develop and adopt a draft policy and safe routes to school map; shepherd through the Traffic Safety Commission for feedback and public review. Q2 FY24/25 PW/CDD Initiated 25% TAMC presented on the Safe Routes to School
Concept to Traffic Safety Commission and
City/PGUSD Joint Subcommittee.

Incorporate policy elements for implementation as a part of subsequent CIP streets infrastructure improvements. N/A PW/CDD
Not yet
initiated 0%
Though no policy has been developed, complete
street concepts are considered during CIP project
development.

New Mandate Goal Milestone
Quarter of
Completion Lead Dept Status
Percnt
Complete Additional Notes
PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove Implements environmentally sustainable practices that protect wildlife and the coastal community.

YES NO
Complete Streets Poley: adopt a plan to Implement the
design of safe walking paths, sldewalks and bike lanes.

Including slgnage.

YES NO Enhance the process, prioritization, scheduling and completion of CIP projects.

PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove prioritizes capital needs and maintains community assets Community Goals & Workplan 2023-25
PRIORITY AREA: Recreation Services
YES NO Expand hours and services of the Youth Center
YES NO
Evaluate fees for use/rental of City faclllies (e.g.

Chautauqua Hal, etc.) to incentlvlze more use by the
community.

POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove offers robust and accessible recreational and cultural activities for all ages.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 296 ends

Receive recommendations from City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Subcommittee to authorize funds for a consultant: present to BNRC and then City Council for review and additional input. Q2 FY24/25 PW/CDD In Progress 90% Bid award schedueld for Q3 of FY24/25.

Present proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan to BNRC and then City Council for review and adoption. N/A PW/CDD
Not yet
initiated 0%
BNRC and Council will review when plan is
developed.

Complete comprehensive Title 12 revisions; revisions focus on replanting compliance and tree appeal process; to be reviewed by the BNRC. Q2 FY24/25 PW Complete 100% Reviewed by BNRC in January, April and July of
2024.

Complete comprehensive Title 12 revisions; revisions focus on replanting compliance and tree appeal process; to be reviewed City Council. N/A PW Not yet
initiated 0% Planned for City Council review in Q3 of FY24/25.

Plant and maintain (e.g., additional labor) 150 native trees on public property and public right-of-way. Q4 FY23/24 PW Completed 100%
150 trees planted at various locations, including 50+
trees in George Washington Park with community
support.

Train CSOs in wildlife protection. Q3 24/25 PD/CMO Initiated 50% Contract with Good City (consultant) for CSO training
has expired. CSO's are collecting data on calls for
service regarding wildlife and coastal contacts. This
data is to be compiled at the end of 2024
Draft and issue RFQ for Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments. Q4 FY22/23 CMO/CDD Completed 100% Proposal was too high, considering revisings to the
RFP to lower costs
Review and rank RFQ responses: make recommendation for City Council to award contract. Q2 FY24/25 CDD/CMO Initiated 50%
Pending new RFP above or Council appropriation of
$300,000
Release a public draft of LCP amendments for review and City Counciladoption; submit to California Coastal Commission for LCP Amendment. N/A CDD/CMO
Not yet
initiated 0%
This action will not take place prior to the end of Q2
23/24
Hire a consultant to conduct biological assessment of GWP in order to update and recommend implementation measures of the GWP master plan. Q4 FY22/23 PW Initiated 95% Study expected to be completed in Q3 of FY24/25 Receive and review Monterey Fire Department's Community Wildfire Protection Plan for impact to GWP (harmonize and align). Ql FY24/25 MFD/PW Complete 100% The final CWPP report is available online:
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/cwpp
Implement Council adopted policies for GWP Master Plan in alignment with approved City Council direction. N/A PW/MFD Initiated 10% Improvements consistent with GWP master plan
commenced in September 2024. Improvements were
halted at request Council & BNRC; Only maintenance
for safety will be executed until new plan is approved.

New Mandate Goal Milestone
Quarter of
Completion Lead Dept Status
Percnt
Complete Additional Notes
Review, audit and conduct field visits for prior second unit report. N/A CDD Ongoing 20% Prior second unit report was unable to be located.

Present findings and staff recommendations to City Council for direction. Ongoing N/A Best addressed on a case-by-case basis as units are
discovered and legalization sought.

Prepare and present draft 6th Cycle Housing Element to the Planning Commission, including DEIR (if necessary). Q2 FY24/25 CDD Complete,
Ongoing 100%
The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed
in late 2023. Draft EIR is underway.

Submit draft 6th Cycle Housing Element to HCD for comments. Q2 FY23/24 CDD Complete 100% Draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD on
November 1, 2023. City received formal HCD
comments on January 31, 2024. Staff will resubmit to
HCD on December 20, 2024
Prepare and present draft 6th Cycle Housing Element to the City Council for final adoption and EIR certification (if necessary). Q1 FY 25/26 CDD Ongoing 60% Likely summer 2025.

NO
Review, update and implement George Washington
Park Master Plan. NO NO
NO YES Complete Housing Element Update (MANDATED}
YES NO Explore and assess the grandfathering of existing nonconforming ADU's Ongoing 100%
The revised Draft Housing Element containing
Integrate HCD revisions into the draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Q2 FY24/25 CDD responses to HCD comments will be submitted to PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove supports a diversity of affordable housing opportunities.

Initiate and complete a Citywide Tree Improvement
and Management Plan (e.g., planting In pubic
areas,sustainable tree maintenance and removal
strategies, review and replacement of non-native
plants and species,etc.).

NO Protect Wldllfe and Habitat.

YES NO
YES NO Initiate and Complete a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 297 ends

Prepare 6th Cycle Housing Element draft with Rincon Consultants to deteremine an inventory of feasible development sites for affordable housing. N/A CDD Ongoing 60% To follow certified Housing Element Determine outside developers' interest in sites selected in Housing Element to develop affordable housing. N/A CDD Ongoing 20% To follow certified Housing Element City Council review and consideration of preferred site, including selection of preferred market and/or non-profit developer. N/A CDD Ongoing 60% To follow certified Housing Element QUARTER Flscalyear
Ql
July-AugSept
Q2
Oct-NovDec
Q3
Jan-FebMarch
Q4
April-MayJune
Initiate a feaslblllty and site selection process for the design and construction of an affordable housing
project

YES YES
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 298 ends

Work Priority Description Status
Included in
23/25 Goals &
Workplan?
Funded?
Cannabis Permitting Licensing procedure to
implement ordinance Hired HdL. Draft Rules being finalized and will be presented to Council in April no yes Outside Dining Create policy manual with
standards Policy Manual Adopted. Ordinance adopted by Council no yes Parklet Encroachment
permit Renewals for 25/26
Do we want to issue another year
of encroachment permits in 6/25
Council direction is needed to decide if remaining parklets are to be re permitted for another year. no no
Wildlife Protection Plan
Incorporate Wildlife Protection
Efforts in LCP and implement a
program to police wildlife
protection/education
LCP work will be held until other LCP updates needed next year or so. Draft Wildlife protection policy needs to be completed. Good City provided a proposal to complete the work for approx. $40k. Wildlife complaints and CSO responses to be compiled at year end and report issue on the one year experience. Good City was to complete this report. Needs further direction from Council. yes partial
Safe Routes to School Develop a safe routes to school
plan
TAMC presented on the topic to TSC and Joint subcommittee with PGUSD. PW and TAMC to have further discussions regarding a demonstration project on Pine Avenue.
no no
Complete Streets Develop a complete streets policy
No bids received to assist the City within budget. Staff still exploring other options with TAMC. PC recommended Council reissue the RFP, which was not acted on. Anticipating an updated Circulation Element with Complete Streets policies will be required in next 2-years. Bicycle master plan separate effort? Staff to look at a CIP project on Pine with Complete Streets design for 2025/26 CIP budget possible
yes partial
Archeological Protocol
A one stop document that
addresses public and private
property projects
Revisions completed and getting one last staff review. Anticipating bringing to Council in April. no yes
HRI Deletions Review and possible removal of
HRI properties
Planning has been presenting 5-10 cased per month to the HRC. Efforts will slow for next couple of months until a new planner is hired. no n/a DEI Study
Hire a consultant to review City
employment and service
practices from the lens of DEI
City Manager and DEI staff liaison to discuss a revised scope of work with chair and Council liaison no no

CONSOLIDATED WORKPLAN PRIORITIES
(Not inclusive of all workplan items, CIP, maintenance, routine work priorities in the course of City services or businesses) PGCC 2-19-25

Page 299 ends

ATC Release of Sloat Easement Vacation and Agreement was approved. Will be opening escrow for payment and recording of transaction. Waiting on developer to submit plans. no n/a Kimpton Hotel Water
Allocation
Amendment to promissory note
for water allocation to receive
money sooner
Complete. Approx. $972k received for water allocation. no n/a CAAP
Develop a Climate Action and
Adaptation Plan Consultant selected. Council approved contract yes no Pickleball Continue to revise actions to
lessen Pickleball noise impacts
Council approved the budget to resurface courts and put up sound attenuation on fences. Fencing installed. Court resurfacing to occur when rainy session ends. no yes Navy/NOAA Property
Chronicle Heritage is evaluating
property for historical
significance
CD Director provided comments to the consultant for corrections to the final report. Resubmittal not yet received. no yes
Housing Element/GP
Amendments/Zoning
Amendments/EIR
Adopt the 6th Cycle Housing
Element EIR kicked off. Revised Draft H.E. submitted to HCD. yes yes CIP Project Efficiencies
Develop alternative ways to
facilitate CIP projects to increase
efficiency
Hiring a City Engineer and evaluating process improvement. New 5 year CIP schedule to be employed next year. yes yes
Facility Assessment
Consultant assessing
maintenance needs and
proposed schedule for City
facilities
Complete and presented. Will be used for CIP in 25/26. More city facilities to be assessed in 25/26 pending budget approval. yes yes
George Washington Park
Master Plan Update Masterplan Biological Study. Begin work again following Council Authorization. yes yes Title 12 Update Review and Update of City's Trees
and the Urban Forest Ordinance Ready to represent for consideration yes yes Committee/Commission
Review
Review roles, responsibilities of
each board. Reviewed EDC in December 2024. no no
DT Maintenance Additional maintenance 1/2 time worker has made great progress. Ongoing. Assisted Chamber with lighting costs for holidays. no yes
Shuttle/Trolley Service
Extend Monterey Trolley to
Lighthouse DT District or create
local shuttle
ATC to provide a $50k contribution to purchase a shuttle/trolley no partial ADU Grandfathering
Program
Explore legalizing unpermitted
ADUs for RHNA
Staff will develop a proposal for Council consideration following the onboarding of a new housing person and CD Director. yes no
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 300 ends

Chautaugua Hall NHR
Complete and submit an
application for the National
Historic Registery
A proposal has been obtained from Page and Turnbull. Cost is approx. $20k.

Need to get Council budget amendment approval to proceed. no no Lighthouse Reservation NHR
Complete and submit an
application for the National
Historic Registery
Pending Council direction no no
AB1332 Pre-approved ADU
Plans
Hire a designer/architect to
develop ADU plans per AB1332
Needed to comply with State law. Included $30K in CDD 24/25 budget. Staff has a preliminary RFP drafted. no yes
Phase II Updates to the
Remaining Elements of the
General Plan
Update all remaining elements of
the General Plan
Back-burnered as the Housing Element needed to move forward in an expedited fashion. Phase I consists of Housing Element, Land Use Element, Health & Safety Element (currently underway).
no no
Laserfiche / Records
Retention & Destruction
Complete past contracts, review
implementation thereof, ongoing
contracts; and next steps for citywide implementation.

Ongoing yes no
Municipal Code Clean up of code Ongoing and at Council direction no no Council Policies Clean up of policy enactment
dates and amendments Ongoing no no
City Organizational
Assessment
Review of City personnel
composition
In progress for overall organization, with a deeper study with the PW department. no yes
Great Tide Pool Trail Repair Repairs following storm damage In progress, concept plans developed, CDP document prep in progress no no Lovers Point Pier Repair Repairs following storm damage CDP application process underway with CCC no no GWP Plan Year long biological assessment complete yes no PGCC 2-19-25

Page 301 ends

Project Source
General Fund - 202,500 - - - -
Capital
Contribution - 67,500 - - - -
CIP 23-06 Pump Station 15.5 Sewer Fund
110,000 250,000 - - - - 360,000
CIP25-05 PG Museum of National History Flooring
Replacement
Museum
Improvement
Fund - 35,000 - - - - 35,000
CIP25-06 Museum Roof Repair (Storage Garage)
Museum
Improvement
Fund - 17,000 - - - - 17,000
CIP25-07 Point Pinos Lighthouse Electrical Panel Lighthouse Fund - 20,000 - - - - 20,000
CIP25-08 Golf Course Water Heater Golf Course
Fund - 20,000 - - - - 20,000
CIP25-09 Library Door Repair ARPA Fund
- 22,000 - - - - 22,000
CIP25-10 Recreation Trail Improvements (Esplanade
Park)
Strong
Disbursement
Fund - 20,000 40,000 - - - 60,000
CIP25-11 Pico Ave. & Crocker Ave. Stormwater
Improvements
Strong
Disbursement
Fund - 45,000 - - - - 45,000
Golf Course
Fund - 16,500 20,000 - - -
CourseCo
Contribution - 16,500 20,000 - - - Golf Course
Fund - 27,500 22,000 - - - CourseCo
Contribution - 27,500 22,000 - - - Measure X
- 730,000 - - - - 730,000
RMRA/SB1
- 386,065 - - - - 386,065
Sewer Fund
- 300,000 - - - - 300,000
General Fund
- 200,000 - - - - 200,000
Measure X - 200,000 - - - - 200,000
$ - $ 702,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 702,500
- 111,500 42,000 - - - 153,500
- - - - - -
110,000 2,139,065 82,000 - - - 2,331,065
$ 110,000 $ 2,953,065 $ 124,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,187,065 (1) Multi-Year Projects represent only those projects funded in Fiscal Year 24/25. The list does not included projects that were completed in Fiscal Year 23/24 or projects that have yet to be appropriated in Fiscal Years 24/25.

CIP25-01
CIP25-02 FY 24/25 Crack and Slurry Seal
Multi-Year Project Funding Summary
Represents Projects Included in the Fiscal Year 24/25 Adopted Budget (1) Project
Code
Est. FY 23/24
and Prior Years Est. FY 24/25 Est. FY 25/26
Est. FY
26/27
Est. FY
27/28
Est. FY
28/29 Total
- -
- - - 300,000
FY 24/25 Street Rehabilitation Project
General Fund
- 300,000
-
-
Capital Improvement Projects Total
General Fund Total
General Fund: Grants and Capital Contributions
Pending
Non-General Fund Total
CIP25-13 Cart Path Improvements 99,000
CIP25-03 Pedestrian Safety - Central Ave. &
Foundation Ave. $ 270,000
CIP25-12 Tee Expansion & Renovation 73,000
CIP 25-04 Community Center Sewer Repairs Sewer Fund
- 50,000 - 50,000
173
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 302 ends

Pacific Grove City CouncilFebruary 19, 2025

Pacific Grove City Council
February 19, 2025