Pacific Grove City Council
May 6, 2026

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 17 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing programs and regulations required by the FCAA and the CCAA (MBARD, 2008). The most recent air quality management plan (AQMP) is from 2012-2015 and focuses on achieving the state ozone standards. MBARD has also produced the 2014 Plug-In Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan and the 2007 Federal Maintenance Plan for maintaining federal ozone standards. NCCAB Attainment Status to National and California Ambient Air Quality can be found in Table 3-2 below.

Table 3-2. Attainment Status for the NCCAB
Pollutants State Designation Federal Designation
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment – Transitional Attainment
Inhalable Particulates (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Attainment Attainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Monterey Co. – Attainment Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) San Benito Co. – Unclassified Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Santa Cruz Co. – Unclassified Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Source: MBARD, 2017.

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities where sensitive population groups are located, including residences, schools, childcare centers, convalescent homes, and medical facilities. Land uses such as schools and hospitals are considered more sensitive than the general public to poor air quality because of an increased susceptibility to respiratory distress within the populations associated with these uses. The nearest residential land uses are located approximately 540 feet east of the project site, across the municipal golf course and Asilomar Avenue.

Thresholds of Significance
MBARD provides guidance in assessing air quality impacts for projects. In 2008, MBARD adopted new CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that included thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA.

Furthermore, the 2016 report, Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, summarizes the significance thresholds. The significance thresholds, all of which except greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, are adopted thresholds of the MBARD and used in this analysis and summarized in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Construction and Operational Emissions Criteria Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds
Operational
Thresholds
Construction of
the Project
(lbs/day)
Operation of
the Project
(lbs/day)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 137 137
Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG) 137 137
Particulate Matter (PM10) 82 82
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
PGCC 5-6-26
315
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 18 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
Discussion/Mitigation
a) No Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(b) requires that a project be evaluated for consistency with applicable regional plans, including the AQMP. The most recent AQMP update was approved in March 2017.

This plan addresses attainment of the State ozone standards and federal air quality standard. The AQMP accommodates growth by projecting growth in emissions based on population forecasts prepared by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) and other indicators. Consistency determinations are issued for commercial, industrial, residential, and infrastructure-related projects that have the potential to induce population growth. A project is considered inconsistent with the AQMP if it has not been accommodated in the forecast projects considered in the AQMP. The proposed project involves vegetation management activities at Crespi Pond. As such, the project would not involve construction or new development which would induce population growth. Therefore, no impact would occur due to conflicts or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
b) – d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in any criteria pollutants. Table 3-3, above, defines the significance thresholds for construction and operational emissions. The proposed project would temporarily increase emissions from vehicle trips during project activities; however, these emissions would be limited to approximately 20 total trips for the duration of the project (see Section 17, Transportation for additional detail). Additionally, the project would disturb approximately 0.55 acre within the pond and would not result in generation of fugitive dust, as all vegetation removal would occur in wetted soils associated with the pond. The project would not change the existing land use and all air quality impacts would be temporary. Additionally, the nearest sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site consist of residences located approximately 540 feet east of the project site, across the municipal golf course and Asilomar Avenue. These receptors would not experience substantially increased exposure to pollutant concentrations or odors due to intervening distance and location on the sea bluff, where prevailing winds are likely to quickly dissipate emissions, including odors, before emissions are able to reach receptors in the project vicinity. For these reasons, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to a net increase of criteria pollutants or exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or other emissions, such as odors.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality.

PGCC 5-6-26
316
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 19 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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 the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife 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 wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
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?
Environmental Setting
The project is located in the City of Pacific Grove, which encompasses approximately four (4) square miles of urban land, open space, and a variety of natural habitats including sandy beach, coastal dunes, coastal bluff, wetland, pine forest, and rocky intertidal. The City also contains diverse flora and fauna, including rare, uncommon, and sensitive species (City of Pacific Grove, 1994 and 2020) which are protected under the following federal, state, and local laws and policies.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) establishes special protection for migratory birds by regulating hunting or trade in migratory birds. The MBTA prohibits anyone to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory birds listed in 50 CFR 10, including feathers or other part, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed PGCC 5-6-26
317
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 20 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). The definition of “take” includes any disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young).

Provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1532 et seq., as amended) protect federally listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats from unlawful take. Listed species include those for which proposed and final rules are published in the Federal Register. The ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In general, NMFS is responsible for the protection of ESA-listed marine species and anadromous fish, whereas other listed species are under USFWS jurisdiction. Section 9 of ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed under ESA as endangered or threatened. Take, as defined by ESA, is “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The ESA defines harm as “any act that kills or injures the fish or wildlife…including significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife.” Additionally, Section 9 prohibits removing, digging up, and maliciously damaging or destroying federally listed plants on sites under federal jurisdiction. Section 9 does not prohibit the take of federally listed plants on sites not under federal jurisdiction. If there is the potential for incidental take of a federally listed fish or wildlife species, take of listed species can be authorized through either the Section 7 consultation process for federal actions or a Section 10 incidental take permit process for non-federal actions. Federal agency actions include activities on federal land, conducted by a federal agency, funded by a federal agency, or authorized by a federal agency (including issuance of federal permits).

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) was enacted in 1984. The California Code of Regulations (Title 14, §670.5) lists animal species considered endangered or threatened by the state. Section 2090 of CESA requires state agencies to comply with endangered species protection and recovery and to promote conservation of these species. Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits "take" of any species the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species. Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code defines “take” as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit from the CDFW may be obtained to authorize “take” of any state listed species.

The California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) of 1977 directed CDFW to conduct the legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and Endangered plants in the State." The CNPPA prohibits importing rare and Endangered plants into California, taking rare and Endangered plants, and selling rare and Endangered plants. The CESA and CNPPA authorized the Fish and Game Commission to designate endangered, threatened, and rare species and to regulate the taking of these species (Sec. 2050-2098, Fish and Game Code). Plants listed as rare under the CNPPA are not protected under CESA; however, these plants may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research.

Section 3503 of the state Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3511 prohibits the take or possession of fully protected birds. Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame birds designated under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Section 3800 prohibits the take of nongame birds.

The classification of Fully Protected was the state's initial effort in the 1960's to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced extinction. Lists were created for fish (Section 5515), mammals (Section 4700), amphibians and reptiles (Section 5050), and birds (Section 3511). Most Fully Protected species have also been listed as threatened or endangered species under the more recent endangered species laws and regulations. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses PGCC 5-6-26
318
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 21 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.

The CDFW also maintains a list of wildlife “species of special concern.” Although these species have no legal status, the CDFW recommends considering these species during analysis of project impacts to protect declining populations and avoid the need to list them as endangered in the future.

The Natural Resources Element of the City’s General Plan and the Natural Systems and Resource Management chapter of the City’s LUP identify policies to protect biological resources within the City. The City General Plan and LUP identify policies aimed at reducing impacts on habitat and special-status species from new development. The City LUP generally prohibits alteration of wetlands; however, Section 2.2.4 of the LUP provides an exception for maintenance of Crespi Pond (LUP Policy MAR-2).

Denise Duffy & Associates (DD&A) prepared a Biological Resources Report (Biological Report) for the project site in February 2024 (Appendix A). The Biological Report summarizes the findings of a desktop review and field surveys at the project site conducted on January 9 and 29, 2024 and provides mitigation measures to ensure potential impacts from project activities are less-than-significant. The discussion and mitigation measures below are based on the findings and recommendations of the Biological Report.

Discussion/Mitigation
a) Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would involve removal of emergent vegetation in Crespi Pond. As such, project activities have the potential to impact nesting raptors and other nesting birds and may impact wintering state threatened tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Raptors and other protected avian species have the potential to occur in the project area and tricolored blackbirds are known to occasionally utilize the project site during the fall and winter (i.e., non-breeding) months; if present, project activities could affect the behavior of wintering tricolored blackbirds (DD&A, 2024). Additionally, vegetation removal could result in direct impacts (e.g., destruction of nests, loss of eggs or nestlings) or indirect impacts (e.g., behavioral changes, nest abandonment) to nesting raptors or other nesting birds. Such impacts would be considered significant. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would be implemented to ensure these impacts are avoided or reduced to less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct vegetation removal activities outside of the nesting season to avoid impacts to nesting bird species. Vegetation removal activities shall occur between September 1 and February 1, outside of the breeding and nesting season, to avoid potential impacts to nesting raptors and other nesting avian species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct pre-construction surveys for tricolored blackbird prior to initiation of Project activities and perform daily monitoring during construction. A pre-construction survey for tricolored blackbirds will be performed by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of project activities. The biologist will train a designated monitor on the construction crew to identify the species. Once the biologist is satisfied that the designated monitor can identify the species, that individual will conduct the surveys prior to each day’s work. The biologist will remain on call and available to respond to the designated monitor’s request to confirm a sighting. The biologist will conduct spot checks in addition to weekly visits to ensure the mitigation is being implemented in a satisfactory manner. If tricolored blackbirds are identified, project activities shall not be allowed to proceed until subsequent surveys can confirm that the birds have left the area of their own volition.
b) and c) Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project contains sensitive habitats, including California bulrush marsh and ESHA associated with wetlands and open waters of Crespi Pond (see Appendix A, Figure 3). These sensitive habitats would be temporarily disturbed by vegetation removal, which would remove approximately 43 percent of the existing emergent wetland vegetation in the pond. This impact would be temporary, as emergent vegetation would re-colonize the pond over time. No PGCC 5-6-26
319
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 22 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
placement of fill or permanent changes to wetlands will result from the proposed project. Wetlands and open waters identified within the survey area are jurisdictional under the California Coastal Act and may also be regulated by CDFW under the Lake and Streambed Program. Unauthorized impacts to sensitive habitats could occur if construction activities were to occur outside of the proposed work limits or if construction activities result in erosion and sedimentation to adjacent habitats. Additionally, unauthorized impacts to sensitive habitats could occur if an accident during construction were to result in the release of hazardous materials into the adjacent sensitive habitats. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3A – BIO-3C would reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3A: Limit future vegetation removal to minimize the loss of wetland function and habitat value. Subsequent to the initial maintenance vegetation removal, vegetation removal will occur no more than once every two years and shall include the removal of no more than 50 percent of the emergent vegetation present at that time to minimize the scope and scale of the temporary loss of wetland function and habitat value.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3B: Avoid discharges of suspended sediment to the beach or Monterey Bay. Project activities should be conducted when the water level in Crespi Pond is below the elevation of the overflow culvert to ensure that no water or suspended sediment is discharged to the adjacent beach or Monterey Bay. If project activities cannot be timed to avoid discharging water to the beach or Monterey Bay, a sediment filter shall be attached to the outlet pipe that connects Crespi Pond to the beach to ensure suspended sediments from project activities are not discharged to the beach or Monterey Bay.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3C: Store hazardous materials away from aquatic resources. The contractor shall ensure that all equipment, fuels, lubricants, and solvents are stored in a designated staging area at least 100 feet from aquatic resources, throughout the duration of project activities. d) Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would not impact wildlife migratory corridors but could impede the use of nursery sites by temporarily reducing available emergent wetland habitat used by nesting birds (DD&A, 2024). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3A, described above, would reduce potential impacts related to use of nursery sites to a less-than-significant level. e) and f) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policy or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City LUP generally prohibits alteration of wetlands; however, Section 2.2.4 of the LUP provides an exception for maintenance activities in wetland habitat and ESHA at Crespi Pond (City of Pacific Grove, 2020; DD&A, 2024). Additionally, the project would 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 (DD&A, 2024). For these reasons, no impact would occur.

Conclusion
The proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact on biological resources that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures described in this section.

PGCC 5-6-26
320
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 23 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Environmental Setting
Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural importance. Significant cultural resources may be historical resources (i.e., cultural resources eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources [CRHR]) or unique archaeological resources as defined in CEQA. Cultural resources encompass archaeological and historic resources as briefly summarized below:
 Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of prehistoric human activities and cultures.

Archaeological resources are associated with Indigenous cultures and historic-era settlement and are less than 10,000 years old.
 Historic Resources: Historic resources (extant buildings and structures) are associated with the more recent past. In California, historic resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the state’s history and are usually less than 200 years old.  Tribal Cultural Resources: Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the CRHR or local register of historical resources (PRC §21074).

CEQA requires regulatory compliance for projects involving historic resources throughout the state. Under CEQA, public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on historic resources (PRC §21084.1). The CEQA Guidelines define a significant resource as any resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR [see PRC §21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (a) and (b)].

Several sections of the California Public Resource Code (PRC) protect cultural resources located on public land. Under PRC §5097.5, no person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site (including fossilized footprints), inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological, or historical feature situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency that has jurisdiction over the lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

PRC §5097.98 states that if Native American human remains are identified within a project area, the landowner must work with the Native American Most Likely Descendant as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to develop a plan for the treatment or disposition of the human remains and any items PGCC 5-6-26
321
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 24 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity. These procedures are also addressed in §15064.5 of the state CEQA Guidelines. California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 prohibits disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 regulates the treatment of human remains. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined that the remains are not subject to his or her authority. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours.

The City General Plan and LUP designate the entirety of the Pacific Grove Coastal Zone as an Archaeologically Sensitive Area (City of Pacific Grove, 2020). The City’s LUP includes the following policies for the preservation of archaeological resources:

Policy CRS-1: The City will conduct consultations with any federally-recognized California tribal government listed on the most recent notice of the United States Federal Register and any non-federally recognized California tribe listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission that identifies as native to the Monterey Peninsula, including the Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation, in accordance with state law.

Policy CRS-2: The City will ensure the protection, preservation, and proper disposition of archaeological resources within the Coastal Zone by assessing the potential impact of proposed development and ensuring, to the maximum extent feasible, that tribal concerns are considered before actions on proposed development are taken and that such impacts are avoided, minimized, or mitigated in conformity with the Coastal Act and other applicable legal requirements.

Policy CRS-3: The City will assist developers and landowners by providing early identification of sensitive sites so that archaeological resources can be considered and protected during the early phases of project design. The City shall require new development to prepare an archaeological report by a qualified professional and, where appropriate, shall require mitigation measures to adequately protect and preserve potential archeological resources.

Policy CRS-4: The City will update the background information for all archaeological sites identified within the Coastal Zone to develop a current assessment of the resources’ potential historical significance and evaluate their vulnerability to climate change, including those sites recommended or determined to be eligible for listing in either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources; and conduct the further research needed in order to determine the present condition of each site and to make an assessment of their potential eligibility for listing on either register, and therefore, their potential historical importance.

On September 24, 2024, the City initiated Native American consultation with the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County (ETMC) and the ETMC requested a cultural assessment of the project site be prepared. Albion prepared a Phase I Archaeological and Cultural Resources Assessment Report (Archaeological Report) for the proposed project in November 2024. Albion’s assessment consisted of background research and field reconnaissance of the project area. Background research included comprehensive archival and background research and records search covering the project site. The following sources were consulted as part of the records search:
 National Register of Historic Places,
 California Register of Historical Resources,
PGCC 5-6-26
322
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 25 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
 Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility,  Northwest Information Center (NWIC),
 California State Historic Property Data Files,
 California Points of Historical Interest,
 California Historical Landmarks,
 Caltrans State and Local Bridge Survey, and
 Special Research Collections at the UCSB Library (Aerial Images and Historic Maps).

The field reconnaissance consisted of a pedestrian survey of the project area on November 6, 2024, to identify any previously unrecorded precontact or historic-era cultural resources and formally record existing improvements within the project area. The following discussion is based on the results and recommendations provided in Albion’s Archaeological Report.

Discussion/Mitigation
a) No Impact. No historic resources are known to be on the project site. The project site is not a historical site, nor is the project site adjacent to a historical site (Albion, 2024). The nearest historic site is the Point Piños Lighthouse, located approximately 800 feet south of the proposed project. Project activities would be limited to the project site; therefore, project activities would not disturb the Point Piños Lighthouse. For these reasons, the proposed project would not impact historical resources. b) – c) Less-than-Significant Impact. No known archaeological resources or human remains are located on the project site; however, several precolonial cultural sites are located within 0.25 miles of the proposed project (Albion, 2024). Due to the large number of cultural sites in the vicinity of the project site, Albion determined it is possible that at one point, the project site may have contained archaeological deposits. However, Albion concluded that because the project site was previously disturbed in association with the existing golf course, it is unlikely that intact archaeological deposits currently exist at the proposed project site (Albion, 2024).

Similarly, no known human remains are known to be on the project site. Additionally, because geology and soils at the site date to the Mesozoic Period, Albion concluded the project site had a low sensitivity for buried precolonial sites (Albion, 2024). Therefore, it is unlikely any unknown human remains are located onsite.

Furthermore, the project site was previously disturbed in association with prior vegetation removal activities and the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of a CDP issued by the City.

Therefore, the proposed project CDP may include the following standard conditions for protecting cultural resources:
 Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. If archaeological resources are unexpectedly discovered during construction, work shall be halted within at least 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist in collaboration with a Native American representative. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented by the City in coordination with a qualified professional archaeologist in collaboration with a Native American representative.
 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If, during the course of construction, human remains are uncovered at the site, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified to make further recommendations. No further ground-disturbing activities will occur at the site until the County Coroner has been contacted.

If the County Coroner or qualified professional determines that the remains are of Native American origin and are prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted by the Coroner so that a “Most Likely Descendant” can be designated and recommendations for treatment solicited pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5(e). Work shall not resume within the immediate vicinity of the discovery until the remains have been appropriately removed from the site.

PGCC 5-6-26
323
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 26 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
Due to the low sensitivity of the project site to contain cultural resources or human remains and because the proposed project would include standard conditions to comply with the City-issued CDP, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to cultural and archaeological resources and disturbance of human remains.

Conclusion
The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact on cultural resources.

PGCC 5-6-26
324
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 27 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

6. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Environmental Setting
The project site lies within the service area of Central Coast Community Energy (3CE), a locally controlled public agency providing carbon-free electricity to residents and businesses. 3CE is based on a community choice aggregator model which is community focused and not for profit. 3CE is on track to provide 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. 3CE partners with the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), which continues to provide billing, power transmission and distribution, customer service, grid maintenance services, and natural gas services to Monterey County (3CE, 2024).

Discussion/Mitigation
a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of vegetation removal using a bargemounted Aquamog. As such, the project does not involve any operational energy use. Energy use would be limited to temporary worker vehicle energy consumption from commuting to and from the project site, and the use of food-grade hydraulic oil to power the Aquamog equipment. The proposed project would require four personnel onsite for a duration of up to 20 – 25 days and a minimum of 10 days. It is assumed that project personnel would take the most efficient routes to and from the project site to avoid wasteful or unnecessary fuel consumption. Additionally, given the limited worker vehicle trips and short duration of the project, the project would result in negligible energy use and would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. b) No Impact. The proposed project would use negligible energy and would therefore not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan related to energy use. No impact would result from the proposed project.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on energy resources.

PGCC 5-6-26
325
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 28 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Environmental Setting
California is one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. The project site lies within the Monterey Bay-Tularcitos fault zone. The nearest faults to the project site are the Hatton Canyon fault, which is a PGCC 5-6-26
326
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 29 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
quaternary fault located approximately 2.5 miles south-southwest of the project site and the Navy fault, a Holocene fault located approximately 2.0 miles northeast of the site (CDC, 2024a; Monterey County, 2024).

The project site is also mapped as having low landslide, erosion, and liquefaction susceptibility and the City is considered an area of low susceptibility to lateral spreading (Monterey County, 2024; City of Pacific Grove, 1994).

Soils at the project site consist of Baywood sand. This soil type is typical of dunes, with underlying stabilized eolian sands as parent material. This soil is somewhat excessively drained, with a typical water table depth of 80 inches and very low runoff (NRCS, 2024). The project site does not contain known paleontological resources (Rosenberg and Clark, 2001).

Discussion/Mitigation
a.i) – a.iii) No Impact. The project site is not in an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone (CDC, 2024a; Monterey County, 2024). The proposed project is in a seismically active region; however, no known faults are present within the project site. The nearest active fault to the project site is the Navy fault, located offshore approximately 2.0 miles from the proposed project. The nearest onshore fault to the proposed project is the Hatton Canyon fault, located approximately 2.5 miles south-southwest of the project (CDC, 2024a; Monterey County, 2024). The proposed project would not exacerbate the risk of strong seismic ground shaking or seismicrelated ground failure. The project site is in an area of low liquefaction and lateral spreading susceptibility (Monterey County, 2024; City of Pacific Grove, 1994); therefore, ground failure is not expected at or in the vicinity of the project site in the event of an earthquake. Additionally, the project consists of using a bargemounted Aquamog to remove vegetation from Crespi Pond. As such, the project does not include construction or operation which would increase exposure of people or buildings to increased risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from seismic hazards, including fault rupture. Therefore, no impact would occur. a.iv) No Impact. Monterey County and the City General Plan identify the City as having a low landslide risk (Monterey County, 2024; City of Pacific Grove, 1994). Additionally, the project site is flat and is surrounded by a maintained golf course. The site is therefore not adjacent to any sloped areas that may be subject to a landslide.

Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to landslides. b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project is in an area with low erosion susceptibility (Monterey County, 2024); however, the proposed project would involve using barge-mounted equipment to remove vegetation within and along the perimeter of the pond. Temporary erosion could occur on the banks of the pond, where equipment is entering or exiting the pond; however, the area of disturbance would be limited to where equipment is entering and exiting the pond. Additionally, the pond banks are vegetated with grass associated with the golf course and the banks surrounding the pond are not generally exposed. Therefore, movement of equipment into and out of the pond is not expected to result in substantial erosional impacts. Vegetation removal would involve removing the root masses of plants within the pond. The vegetation that would be removed as part of the project is rooted to the pond floor as opposed to the pond’s banks and is therefore not expected to result in bank erosion. For these reasons, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Please refer to Section 4, Biological Resources and Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality for additional information on impacts related to erosion and sedimentation. c) and d) No Impact. The project is in an area with low liquefaction potential, low landslide potential, and in an area with a low potential for lateral spreading (Monterey County, 2024; City of Pacific Grove, 1994).

Additionally, soil at the project site consists of well-drained sandy soils. Expansive soils are those that comprise silty clay, which are relatively poorly drained and prone to shrinking and swelling in response to changes in moisture content (Rajapakse, 2016). The soils at the project site do not contain high clay content and are poorly drained; therefore the soil at the site is not considered expansive. Furthermore, the project consists of removing PGCC 5-6-26
327
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 30 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
vegetation using barge-mounted equipment and would not involve construction that could result in geotechnical impacts. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to unstable or expansive soils. e) and f) No Impact. The proposed project does not require a septic tank or wastewater disposal systems.

Therefore, no impact would occur due to presence of soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

The project site does not contain any paleontological resources or unique geological features. Paleontological Resources of Monterey County, California is a report detailing the location of paleontological resources of concern in Monterey County. The report includes geospatial data to help visualize the location of these resources across Monterey County. No paleontological or unique geologic features exist within or adjacent to the project site (Rosenberg and Clark, 2001). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on paleontological resources or unique geological features.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on geology and soils.

PGCC 5-6-26
328
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 31 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Setting
Various gases in the earth’s atmosphere, when naturally occurring or ‘background’ levels due to human activity, create a warming or greenhouse effect, and are classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs). These gases play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation.

As a result, the radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect, or climate change, are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), O3, water vapor, nitrous oxides (NOx), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the greenhouse effect. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs.

The project is located in the NCCAB, where air quality is regulated by MBARD. MBARD has not yet adopted a threshold for construction-related GHG emissions but recommends utilizing thresholds set by neighboring districts (e.g., Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District [SMAQMD]). SMAQMD adopted an updated threshold based on the 2030 target year in April 2020. According to SMAQMD, project construction would result in a significant GHG-related impact if the project would emit more than 1,100 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr). For operation of a stationary source project, MBARD states that a project would result in a significant impact if GHG emissions exceed 10,000 MTCO2e/yr, which includes both direct and indirect GHG emissions. Direct emissions occur as a result of the equipment onsite as well as offsite emissions from commute trips and haul truck trips. Indirect emissions are those resulting from project actions but not produced from sources owned or controlled by a project (i.e., electricity generation, water conveyance, and waste disposal) (MBARD, 2016).

Discussion/Mitigation
a) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would consist of removing vegetation in Crespi Pond to enhance habitat. As such, the project would not involve construction or result in permanent increases in GHG emissions. All emissions would result from temporarily increased commutes to/from the pond during maintenance activities. The proposed project would require four personnel onsite for a duration of up to 20 – 25 days and a minimum of 10 days. Given the limited worker vehicle trips and short duration of the project, the project would result in negligible GHG emissions, far below the established significance thresholds PGCC 5-6-26
329
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 32 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
described above. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact due to generation of GHGs. Please also refer to Sections 3, Air Quality and 6, Energy for additional detail). b) No Impact. The proposed project would consist of removing approximately 0.55 acre of vegetation in Crespi Pond. As such, the project would not result in a permanent increase in GHG emissions. Additionally, due to the small size and short duration of the proposed project (i.e., less than one acre of disturbance over a duration of up to 25 days), temporarily increased GHG emissions would be negligible and far below the established threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e/yr for temporary emissions (also see Discussion a), above). The project would therefore not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and no impact would occur.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact regarding GHG emissions.

PGCC 5-6-26
330
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 33 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Setting
Hazardous materials, as defined by the California Code of Regulations, are substances with certain physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to human health or the environment when improperly handled, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled. Hazardous materials and waste can result in public health hazards if improperly handled, released into the soil or groundwater, or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an PGCC 5-6-26
331
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 34 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
aquifer. Hazardous materials transport, use, and disposal is heavily regulated at the federal, state, and local levels.

These regulations are applied on a project‐specific basis as part of the permitting process.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires California Environmental Protection Agency (“CalEPA”) to develop a Cortese List that is updated at least annually. While CalEPA no longer maintains a single Cortese List, CalEPA uses the following database and list to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65962.5.
 List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database.
 List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database.
 List of solid waste disposal sites identified by State or Regional Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit.  List of “active” Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Clean-up and Abatement Orders (CAO) from State Water Board.
 List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.

In addition to these databases, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the DTSC maintain databases of other hazardous material release sites with documented environmental contamination (i.e., GeoTracker and EnviroStor). The DTSC regulatory search was conducted to identify if the project site is listed in any hazardous materials release databases. No hazardous material sites are identified as being located on or within close proximity of the project site (SWRCB, 2024a and 2024b).

Discussion/Mitigation
a) – b) Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Project activities would require the transport and use of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., lubricants, fuels). Food-grade, biodegradable hydraulic fluid would be used for lubricating and powering machinery used for vegetation removal and is generally considered safe when coming in contact with the public or the environment. However, the project would also involve the use of a dump truck and mini excavator, which utilize oil-based fuels and lubricants. If a leak or spill were to occur, this could result in a potentially significant impact to sensitive habitats, including ESHA. This potentially significant impact would be reduced to less-than-significant through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3c, which requires all equipment, fuels, lubricants, and solvents be stored in a designated staging area at least 100 feet from aquatic resources, as described in Section 4, Biological Resources.
c) – f) No Impact. The proposed project is not located within 0.25 mile of a school, is not on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites, and is not located within the boundaries of an adopted airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. The nearest school is the Pacific Grove Adult Education Center, located approximately 0.7 miles southeast of the project site. The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites (SWRCB, 2024a and 2024b). The nearest hazardous materials cleanup site is a State Response site with a certified Operations and Maintenance plan that requires only land use restrictions at the Point Pinos Lighthouse, located approximately 0.2 mile from the proposed project (SWRCB, 2024a). The Monterey Regional Airport is the closest airport to the project and is located approximately six miles from the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project would not involve new construction or changes to the existing land use and is not located along an emergency evacuation route (City of Pacific Grove, 1994). Furthermore, all equipment and vehicles would be parked and staged off of roadways. Therefore, project activities would not impede emergency access PGCC 5-6-26
332
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 35 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
or conflict with an emergency response plan. For these reasons, the project would result in no impacts due to location near a school or airport, or on a site listed as a hazardous materials site or due to impairment or interference with implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would require the use of barge-mounted equipment requiring lubrication and fueling with hydraulic fluid. Use of equipment could result in mechanical fires; however, because the equipment would be used in a wetted pond, the risk of fire spreading due to project activities is considered low. Additionally, the project site is not in or near an area of high fire risk. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to exposure of people and structures to wildfire.

Please also refer to Section 20, Wildfire for additional detail regarding impacts related to wildfire.

Conclusion
The proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less-thansignificant through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3c (refer to Section 4. Biological Resources).

PGCC 5-6-26
333
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 36 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of a wetland located between the 16th and 17th holes of the City’s municipal golf course, in the City’s Coastal Zone. The pond collects stormwater runoff from the golf course and acts as a detention basin, where sediments are able to settle before excess water overflows a weir located on the north end of the pond and is discharged to the Monterey Bay. Ongoing storage capacity maintenance of the pond helps to prevent direct discharge of surface waters into the stormwater system and thus minimizes stormwater pollution of discharges into the Monterey Bay (CCC, 2003).

PGCC 5-6-26
334
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 37 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
The City’s LUP identifies the following policies for protecting water quality which are applicable to the project:

Policy MAR-1: Protect the City of Pacific Grove’s marine, coastal and tideland resources, including the waters and habitats of the Pacific Grove Area of Special Biological Significance, California State Marine Reserves and State Marine Conservation Areas, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and the California Coastal National Monument, all of which are vital to the community’s environmental, economy and special character. The City will continue to work with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Bureau of Land Management in developing and maintaining a coordinated approach for enforcing federal, state, and local regulations protecting these unique areas.

Policy MAR-2: Wetlands including Crespi Pond and the Majella Slough riparian area shall be considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, and governed by Coastal Act policies 30233, and 30240. No alteration of freshwater wetlands (including Crespi Pond and Majella Slough) shall be allowed, except for maintenance dredging and similar activities essential for restoration and/or enhancement of natural habitats, as well as other uses and development specified in the Biological Resources and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas chapter of this Land Use Plan, and only where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects.

Policy MAR-3: To reduce the potential for degradation or impairment of water quality, including the Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area and Area of Special Biological Significance, the City will continue to investigate and implement new measures to reduce potential pollutants in storm water and irrigation runoff and require the following:
 No diking, filling, dredging, or other uses inconsistent with the terms of the grant of tidal protection from the State of California or Coastal Act Policy 30233 shall be allowed in the City’s tidelands.
 Development shall include specific measures to help reduce potential pollutants and water quality impairment, including controlling the disposal of chemicals and hazardous materials, controlling the use of pesticides and herbicides, maintaining existing storm water capture programs, applying low impact development designs and requiring on-site retention and/or reuse of runoff.  The City will utilize ecologically responsible pest control methods and integrated pest management to the extent feasible on public property and encourage this practice on private property.  Drainage plans and erosion, sediment and pollution control measures shall be required as conditions of approval of every application for new development that has the potential to impair water quality.
 Development that has the potential for water quality impairment shall, at a minimum, be designed to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater runoff requirements.  Construction phase storm water pollutant controls shall be required for development that has the potential for water quality impairment, including erosion controls, sediment traps and filtering of off-site storm water flows, capture of site-generated pollutant sources, street sweeping of dirt tracked offsite, litter control, post-construction monitoring, and other best management practices.

Construction-phase water quality impacts shall be avoided by minimizing the disturbed area, phasing grading activities, implementing soil stabilization and pollution prevention measures, and preventing unnecessary soil compaction.

PGCC 5-6-26
335
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 38 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
Policy MAR-8: Plan, site, and design development in a manner that maintains or enhances on-site infiltration, reduces runoff, minimizes the transport of pollutants in runoff generated from the development, and recharges groundwater. Runoff shall be appropriately collected, filtered, and treated by Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize pollutant loading to the maximum degree feasible.

Discussion/Mitigation
a), ci), and e) Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would consist of removing emergent wetland vegetation to the root masses of plants within the pond using bargemounted equipment. As such, the project would temporarily increase turbidity in the pond. Suspended sediments from project activities could enter the Monterey Bay if project activities occur when the water level of the pond is high enough to overflow the weir at the northern end of the pond, or if appropriate BMPs are not in place to prevent discharge of sediments into the Monterey Bay. This would constitute a potentially significant impact to water quality and may conflict with the region’s water quality control plan, which generally prohibits discharge of sand, silt, clay and other earthen materials into waters of the State in quantities deleterious to fish, wildlife, and other beneficial uses (SWRCB, 2019). Therefore, the project would result in a potentially significant impact from violation of water quality standards, off-site siltation, or conflicts with a water quality control plan. These potential impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3B, which requires prevention of suspended sediment discharges to the beach or Monterey Bay, as described in Section 4, Biological Resources. b) No Impact. The proposed project consists of vegetation management activities at Crespi Pond. The project would increase the storage capacity of the pond through removal of approximately 0.55 acres of emergent wetland vegetation. As such, the project would not require use of groundwater supplies nor would the project adversely interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project would result in no impact from substantially decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. c.ii) – c.iv) No Impact. The project would not alter the drainage pattern at the site such that the rate or amount of surface runoff would increase. The project site currently acts as a stormwater detention basin to allow sediments to settle prior to overflow waters to discharge into the Monterey Bay. The project would consist of vegetation removal, which would increase the storage capacity of the pond but would not change the existing use of the site. The project does not require grading, addition of new impervious surfaces, or other activities that would alter the course of any waterways or increase surface runoff. For these reasons, no impact would occur from increased surface runoff or from impeding or redirecting flows. d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is not located in a FEMA flood hazard zone (FEMA, 2023); however, the proposed project is in the City’s Coastal Zone and is in a tsunami hazard zone (CDC, 2024b). The proposed project consists of vegetation removal within the pond using barge-mounted equipment that would be fueled by food-grade biodegradable hydraulic fluid. Additionally, following removal, a dump truck would be used to haul vegetation for offsite disposal. If a tsunami were to occur during project activities, equipment could leak pollutants (e.g., fuel, lubricants) into Crespi Pond and/or the Monterey Bay. However, given the small scale of the project and the use of biodegradable fuel for vegetation removal equipment, release of pollutants from inundation would be greatly limited and temporary. Additionally, it is unlikely a large enough tsunami would occur during the limited duration of proposed project activities to result in inundation of the project site. The proposed project would not change the existing use of the site, nor would the project involve construction or installation of any infrastructure that could increase risk of the release of pollutants from inundation. For these reasons, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the release of pollutants from inundation caused by a tsunami, seiche, or flooding.

PGCC 5-6-26
336
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 39 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
Conclusion
The proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact to water quality that would be reduced to less-than-significant through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3B (refer to Section 4. Biological Resources).

PGCC 5-6-26
337
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 40 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Environmental Setting
The proposed project consists of vegetation management at Crespi Pond, located in the Point Piños Lighthouse Reservation, between the 16th and 17th holes of the City’s municipal golf course. The project site is in the jurisdiction of the City LUP and City General Plan, which designate land used in the City and provide guidelines and policies for managing various land uses within the City. The designated land use at the site is Open Space Recreation, which accommodates recreational uses, wildlife and forest preserves, parks, playgrounds, and public serving buildings, structures, and parking facilities (City of Pacific Grove, 2020; City of Pacific Grove, 2024).

Discussion/Mitigation
a) – b) No Impact. The project site is on the municipal golf course and consists of removing vegetation within the existing Crespi Pond. As such, the project would not change the existing land use on the site and would not divide an established community. Additionally, the City LUP allows for maintenance of Crespi Pond.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect. For these reasons, no impact would occur from physically dividing an established community or conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation.

Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in land use or planning impacts.

PGCC 5-6-26
338
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 41 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Environmental Setting
Mineral resources are determined in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”) of 1975, and the California Geological Survey which maps regional significance of mineral resources. The CGS delineates Mineral Resource Zones (“MRZs”) based on their mineral resource potential. Additionally, the City General Plan identifies mineral resources within the City of Pacific Grove. The City is designated as a MRZ-3, “areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data” (City of Pacific Grove, 1994). The project site does not contain known valuable or locally important mineral resources (City of Pacific Grove, 1994; CGS, 2021).

Discussion/Mitigation
a) – b) No Impact. The project site is designated as an area containing mineral deposits; however, the significance of these deposits is unknown, as the deposits cannot be evaluated without detailed drilling.

Additionally, because the City is nearly built-out, mineral extraction is precluded by development (City of Pacific Grove, 1994; CGS, 2021). Furthermore, the proposed project consists of vegetation management and would not involve construction requiring the use of mineral resources. Therefore, the project would result in no impact from loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or state, or from loss of availability of a locally important resource recovery site.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources.

PGCC 5-6-26
339
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 42 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

13. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
Environmental Setting
In the context of this document, “noise” is defined as unwanted sound. Environmental noise is frequently measured in decibels (dB). The A-weighted decibel (dBA) is used to reflect the human ear’s sensitivity to sounds of different frequencies. On this scale, the sound level of normal talking is about 60 to 65 dBA. Because people are more sensitive to nighttime noise, sleep disturbance usually occurs at 40 to 45 dBA. The equivalent noise level (Leq) is another widely used noise metric and represents an average, or weighted noise level over a specified time period.

Generally, noise levels diminish at a rate of six (6) dBA as the distance from the noise source doubles. Some land uses are more sensitive to noise than others. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally defined as residences, transient lodging, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, meeting halls, parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and office buildings. The project site is approximately 540 feet from the nearest residences and 800 feet from the nearest historic site (i.e., the Point Piños Lighthouse). No schools, hospitals, or other noise-sensitive land uses are within 1,000 feet of the project site.

The Health and Safety Element of the City General Plan establishes the following hourly and maximum allowable noise standards for stationary noise sources as determined at the property line of the receiving noisesensitive land use:
 Daytime (7am – 10pm) – 50 dB hourly Leq, 70 dB Lmax; and,  Nighttime (10pm – 7am) – 45 dB hourly Leq, 65 dBA Lmax.

Furthermore, the City Municipal Code (Title 11, Chapter 11.96, Section 11.96.040) limits noise-generating construction activities to between the hours of 8am and 6pm, Monday through Saturday, and 10am to 5pm on Sundays (City of Pacific Grove, 2024).

PGCC 5-6-26
340
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 43 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
Discussion/Mitigation
a) – b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of vegetation removal at Crespi Pond, located in the Point Piños Lighthouse Reservation, between the 16th and 17th holes of the municipal golf course.

As such, the project would not permanently introduce a new noise source to the area and would not involve noise-generating construction. Temporary noise generated during project activities would primarily be limited to trucks used for hauling plant material away from the site. The barge-mounted Aquamog equipment is not expected to cause substantial noise or vibration; hydraulic dredging equipment generally produces noise levels of 52 and 46 dB at 400 and 800 feet from the noise source, respectively. Haul trucks would produce approximately 72 and 66 dB at 400 and 800 feet from the noise source, respectively (Columbia Associated, n.d.). The project is approximately 540 feet west of the nearest residences and approximately 800 feet north of the historic Point Piños Lighthouse. No schools, hospitals, or other noise-sensitive land uses are within 1,000 feet of the project site. Given the expected noise levels of equipment used to conduct vegetation removal and distances of sensitive land uses from proposed project activities, noise levels are generally expected to remain below the maximum allowable daytime noise threshold. Haul trucks may slightly exceed the maximum 70-dB daytime threshold; however, hauling of vegetation would occur intermittently and would require minimal trips due to the size of the proposed project. Therefore, exposure to noise generated from haul trucks would be temporary and minor. No nighttime project activities are proposed. Similarly, the proposed project would not result in excessive vibration. Vibration generated from barge-mounted equipment would be reduced by the presence of water in the pond. Haul trucks would produce temporary increased vibration; however, vibration would be intermittent and limited due to the small scale of the project. Additionally, vibrational impacts are primarily of concern to historical buildings, as excessive vibration can compromise structural integrity of historic structures. The nearest historic building is the Point Piños Lighthouse, located approximately 800 feet from the site. Given the nature of the project and the distance of the project from the Point Piños Lighthouse, project activities are not expected to result in impacts to this historic building. For these reasons, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to generation of increased ambient noise levels or excessive groundborne vibration and noise levels.
c) No Impact. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, nor is the project within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport to the proposed project is the Monterey Regional Airport, located approximately six miles southeast of the project site.

Therefore, no impact related to proximity to an airstrip or airport would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to noise and vibration.

PGCC 5-6-26
341
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 44 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Environmental Setting
The project is in the City of Pacific Grove, in Monterey County. Population growth in Monterey County has slowed considerably since the 1990s; population increased by just under five (5) percent between 2010 and 2018, and has remained relatively stable since 2020, with a population increase of 0.8 percent between 2023 and 2024. Similarly, population in the City of Pacific Grove has generally remained stable over the past four (4) years, with an estimated total of 14,966 persons in January of 2024 and 0.6 percent growth between 2023 and 2024 (California Department of Finance, 2024).

Discussion/Mitigation
a) – b) No Impact. The proposed project involves temporary vegetation management activities at Crespi Pond. As such, the project would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, nor would the proposed project displace any existing people or housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have no impact on population and housing.

PGCC 5-6-26
342
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 45 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Environmental Setting
The following sections describe the public services provided in the vicinity of the proposed project.

Fire Protection
The Pacific Grove Fire Department and Monterey Fire Department merged in 2008 to provide expanded fire protection services to the City. The merged Pacific Grove-Monterey Fire Department has 67 personnel and four (4) fire stations in Pacific Grove and Monterey and serves 2.5 square miles and 15,500 residents (City of Pacific Grove, 2024b). The Pacific Grove Fire Department is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the project site.

Police Protection
The Pacific Grove Police Department (PGPD) provides police protection services for the City and is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the project site. PGPD has 22 officers and 10 support professional staff and provides various police patrol services, vehicle abatement, records, including live scan fingerprinting, community outreach, and school resource officer services (City of Pacific Grove, 2024).

Schools
The project site lies within the Pacific Grove Unified School District (PGUSD), which encompasses the City and Pebble Beach between Pacific Grove and the Bird Rock area (PGUSD, 2024). PGUSD has 21 staff and comprises two (2) high schools, one (1) middle school, two (2) elementary schools, and an Adult Education center, serving 1,800 kindergarten through high school students (PGUSD, 2024).

PGCC 5-6-26
343
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 46 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
Parks and Other Public Facilities
The project site is located between the 16th and 17th holes of the City’s municipal golf course and adjacent to the Ocean View Boulevard and the Monterey Bay Recreational Trail to the north. No City parks are in the vicinity of the project site; the nearest City park is the Pacific Grove Municipal Baseball/Softball Park, located approximately 0.8 miles south-southeast of the project.

Discussion/Mitigation
a) and c) - e) No Impact. The proposed project would consist of vegetation removal at Crespi Pond, located on the City’s municipal golf course. As such, the project would not result in additional use or need for new or physically altered fire protection, school, park, or other facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in physical impacts related to new or physically altered facilities for these public services. b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would consist of a maintenance project and would require temporary staging of equipment and temporarily increased activity at the project site. Minor incidents related to project activity could, therefore, occur and could lead to temporary and minor increased reliance on police protection services. However, due to the small scale and temporary nature of the project, any incidents are expected to result in minor impacts on police protection services and would not result in the need for additional or expanded facilities. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to police protection services.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on public services.

PGCC 5-6-26
344
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 47 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

16. RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Setting
Recreation includes formally designated parks, trails, and open spaces, which provide activities like hiking and bird watching, as well as bodies of water where boating, fishing, and swimming are allowed. Recreation in the City is based on access to natural resources that are unique to the area, like the Monterey Bay shoreline. Beach access, dune access, and pedestrian trails are available along the coast at recreational areas, including the nearby Monterey Bay Recreational Trail and Ocean View Boulevard. The project is located within Open Space Recreational land (i.e., the municipal golf course).

Discussion/Mitigation
a) No Impact. The project would consist of removing vegetation for habitat management at Crespi Pond. As such, the proposed project would not involve an increase in the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks such that physical deterioration would occur. Therefore, no impact would occur from increased use of existing neighborhood or regional parks.
b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include construction or expansion of recreational facilities; however, the project is within recreational open space. The project site comprises a pond located between the 16th and 17th holes of the City’s municipal golf course and adjacent to the Monterey Bay Recreational Trail. The proposed project would remove approximately 0.55 acre of emergent wetland vegetation from the pond and would require temporary closure or interruption of play on the golf course to ensure the safety of project personnel during vegetation removal activities. Vegetation removal is anticipated to occur between the hours of 8am and 6pm, Monday through Friday over the course of up to 20 – 25 days, with a 10-day minimum. Temporary closure or interruption of play on the 16th and 17th holes of the golf course is not expected to result in significant recreational impacts, as any closures or stoppage of play would be temporary or intermittent. Potential impacts to users of the Monterey Bay Recreational Trail would be due to temporary aesthetic-related impacts; the project would not limit coastal recreational access and all potential recreational impacts would be limited and temporary. Therefore, the project would result in a less-thansignificant impact related to recreational facilities. Please also refer to Section 1, Aesthetics for additional information.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on recreational resources.

PGCC 5-6-26
345
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 48 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located between the 16th and 17th holes of the municipal golf course in Pacific Grove, adjacent to and south of Ocean View Boulevard. Ocean View Boulevard connects to Asilomar Avenue and Sunset Drive, which provide primary access routes to SR 68. The following state and local policies are applicable to the proposed project. The City General Plan and LUP policies related to transportation apply to new development within the City and are not applicable to the proposed project, as the project would not consist of any new development.

Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 went into effect statewide on July 1, 2020, and requires that transportation impacts for projects per CEQA be based on a project’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”). Thus, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) calls for the evaluation of transportation impacts of projects based on VMT and uses the VMT metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. An assessment of VMT requires estimating vehicle trips for work trips, deliveries, shopping, etc. Vehicle trips can cross between jurisdictions as well as between cities and counties locally. For these reasons, regional models, and household travel surveys are the preferred tool to estimate VMT under State law. The publication Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018, lists screening thresholds for various types of land use development, including some that are presumed to have a less-than-significant VMT effect and, therefore, a less-than-significant adverse transportation impact.

Small projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day are generally assumed to cause a less-thansignificant transportation impact.

City of Pacific Grove Municipal Code
Section 16.56.100 of the City Municipal Code designates the following streets or portions of streets as in the City as truck traffic routes for the movement of vehicles exceeding a maximum gross weight of three (3) tons:
(a) Central Avenue in its full length;
PGCC 5-6-26
346
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 49 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
(b) Congress Avenue from Lighthouse Avenue to Sinex Avenue; (c) Sinex Avenue from Congress Avenue to Seventeen Mile Drive; (d) Seventeen Mile Drive from Sinex Avenue to SR 68 (Sunset Drive); and (e) David Avenue from the east city limits to SR 68 Forest Avenue.

Section 16.44.020 of the City Municipal Code prohibits vehicles exceeding three (3) tons to use streets not designated as truck traffic routes, except when necessary to traverse another street or streets to a destination for the purpose of loading or unloading, but then only by such deviation from nearest truck route as is reasonably necessary.

Discussion/Mitigation
a) – b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would consist of vegetation removal at Crespi Pond. The project would require transportation of removed vegetation along portions of Ocean View Boulevard and Asilomar Avenue, using dump trucks which may have a gross weight exceeding three (3) tons while hauling vegetation. The City’s Municipal Code does not designate Ocean View Boulevard or Asilomar Avenue as truck traffic routes and generally prohibits use of streets not designated as truck traffic routes (see discussion under the Setting section, above). In compliance with the City Municipal Code, the project would limit truck traffic along Ocean View Boulevard and Asilomar Avenue to the extent feasible for loading materials. The use of roadways not designated as truck routes for hauling would therefore result in a less-thansignificant impact related to conflicts with an ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system.

The proposed project would also result in a less-than-significant impact related to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The project would not result in a permanent VMT increase; however, VMT would temporarily increase during project activities. Increased traffic trips would be limited to worker vehicle trips and truck haul trips. The proposed project would require four personnel onsite for a duration of up to 20 – 25 days and a minimum of 10 days. Worker vehicle trips are anticipated to be limited to two (2) trips per day, per person. Truck trips would occur after vegetation has been removed and dried, and is anticipated to require a total of 10 trips for the entire project. This increase in VMT would be temporary and would be far below 110 trips per day. No permanent VMT increase would occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant VMT-related impact. c) – d) No Impact. The proposed project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, nor would the project result in inadequate emergency access. The project does not involve construction or modifications to any roadways, intersections, or driveways. Vegetation management at Crespi Pond is permitted by the City LUP; therefore, maintenance activities would not result in impacts from incompatible uses. Similarly, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to emergency access. All worker vehicles and construction equipment would be parked and staged off of roadways. Additionally, the project site is not located along an evacuation route and would not impede access to designated evacuation routes (City of Pacific Grove, 1994). Therefore, no impact would occur from increased hazards due to design features or from inadequate emergency access.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to transportation.

PGCC 5-6-26
347
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 50 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that
is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 50201(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
Subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Environmental Setting
California AB 52, in effect since July 2015, provides CEQA protections for Tribal cultural resources. All lead agencies approving projects under CEQA are required, if formally requested by a culturally affiliated California Native American Tribe, to consult with such Tribe regarding the potential impact of a project on tribal cultural resources before releasing an environmental document. Under California PRC §21074, Tribal cultural resources include site features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects that are of cultural value to a Tribe and that are eligible for or listed on the CRHR or a local historic register, or that the lead agency has determined to be of significant tribal cultural value.

CEQA requires regulatory compliance for projects involving historic resources throughout the state. Under CEQA, public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on historic resources (PRC §21084.1). The CEQA Guidelines define a significant resource as any resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR [see PRC §21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (a) and (b)].

Several sections of the California Public Resource Code (PRC) protect cultural resources located on public land. Under PRC §5097.5, no person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site (including fossilized footprints), inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological, or historical feature situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency that has jurisdiction over the lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

PGCC 5-6-26
348
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 51 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
PRC §5097.98 states that if Native American human remains are identified within a project area, the landowner must work with the Native American Most Likely Descendant as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to develop a plan for the treatment or disposition of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity. These procedures are also addressed in §15064.5 of the state CEQA Guidelines. California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 prohibits disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 regulates the treatment of human remains. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined that the remains are not subject to his or her authority. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours.

The City General Plan and LUP designate the entirety of the Pacific Grove Coastal Zone as an Archaeologically Sensitive Area (City of Pacific Grove, 2020). The City’s LUP includes the following policies for the preservation of archaeological resources:

Policy CRS-1: The City will conduct consultations with any federally-recognized California tribal government listed on the most recent notice of the United States Federal Register and any non-federally recognized California tribe listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission that identifies as native to the Monterey Peninsula, including the Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation, in accordance with state law.

Policy CRS-2: The City will ensure the protection, preservation, and proper disposition of archaeological resources within the Coastal Zone by assessing the potential impact of proposed development and ensuring, to the maximum extent feasible, that tribal concerns are considered before actions on proposed development are taken and that such impacts are avoided, minimized, or mitigated in conformity with the Coastal Act and other applicable legal requirements.

Policy CRS-3: The City will assist developers and landowners by providing early identification of sensitive sites so that archaeological resources can be considered and protected during the early phases of project design. The City shall require new development to prepare an archaeological report by a qualified professional and, where appropriate, shall require mitigation measures to adequately protect and preserve potential archeological resources.

Policy CRS-4: The City will update the background information for all archaeological sites identified within the Coastal Zone to develop a current assessment of the resources’ potential historical significance and evaluate their vulnerability to climate change, including those sites recommended or determined to be eligible for listing in either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources; and conduct the further research needed in order to determine the present condition of each site and to make an assessment of their potential eligibility for listing on either register, and therefore, their potential historical importance.

The City initiated AB 52 consultation during a regularly scheduled AB 52 Consultation meeting with the ETMC on November 6, 2024. During consultation, the ETMC requested preparation of a cultural resource assessment.

To fulfill the ETMC’s request, Albion prepared an Archaeological Report for the proposed project in November 2024. Albion’s assessment consisted of background research and field reconnaissance of the project area. Background research included a comprehensive archival search of historic data and maps as well as a records search covering the project site. The records search included a search from the NWIC and several historic resource databases (see Section 5, Cultural Resources for additional details). The field reconnaissance PGCC 5-6-26
349
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 52 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
consisted of a pedestrian survey of the project area on November 6, 2024, to identify any previously unrecorded precontact or historic-era cultural resources and formally record existing improvements within the project area.

In addition to Albion’s Archaeological Report, the City sent letters to the ETMC and Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation (OCEN) informing the tribes of preparation of CEQA documentation and the cultural assessment. The tribes did not identify any known cultural resources at the project site. The following discussion is based on the results and recommendations provided in Albion’s Archaeological Report and City AB 52 outreach.

Discussion/Mitigation
a) No Impact. No historical sites are located on the project site or adjacent to the project site (Albion, 2024).

The nearest historical site is the Point Pinos Lighthouse, located approximately 800 feet south of the proposed project. Project activities would be limited to the project site; as such, the proposed project would not impact the Point Pinos Lighthouse. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts to historical resources. b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site does not contain known cultural resources of significance (Albion, 2024). Additionally, Albion determined that because the proposed project is located on a site that is previously in association with the existing golf course, it is unlikely any unknown buried resources of significance are located at the site. Furthermore, soils and geology at the site date to the Mesozoic Period, making it unlikely the project site contains buried precolonial sites (Albion, 2024). For these reasons, Albion concluded the project site had low sensitivity for containing cultural resources. In addition, the project site was previously disturbed in association with prior vegetation removal activities and the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of a CDP issued by the City (see Section 5, Cultural Resources for detailed conditions). Since the proposed project is located in an area of low archaeological sensitivity, does not contain known cultural resources and tribes contacted during AB 52 consultation did not identify any known cultural resources at the project site, and the project would implement standard cultural conditions to comply with the City-issued CDP, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to tribal cultural resources.

Conclusion
The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact on tribal cultural resources.

PGCC 5-6-26
350
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 53 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Environmental Setting
Water and Wastewater
California American Water (CalAm) supplies potable water to the City through a 30-inch steel water main running along Congress Avenue from CalAm’s pumping facility located at Sinex and Eardley Avenues. The City provides sewer services for residences and commercial businesses. The City owns and operates a sewer collection system comprising approximately 58 miles of pipelines varying between four and 18 inches in diameter; 900 manholes; and seven pump stations (Pacific Grove Public Works, 2024).

Electricity and Gas
The project site lies within the service area of 3CE, a locally controlled public agency providing carbon-free electricity to residents and businesses. 3CE is based on a community choice aggregator model which is community focused and not for profit. 3CE is on track to provide 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. 3CE partners with PG&E, which continues to provide billing, power transmission and distribution, customer service, grid maintenance services, and natural gas services to Monterey County (3CE, 2024).

PGCC 5-6-26
351
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 54 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
Solid Waste
The City contracts with a private hauler to provide residents and commercial businesses with trash, recycling, and yard waste collection. Solid waste collected in the City is disposed of at the Monterey Peninsula Landfill, located in the City of Marina and managed by ReGen Monterey. The landfill currently receives less than 1,000 tons of solid waste per day (approximately 300,000 tons per year), but it is permitted to receive 3,500 tons of waste per day. At current disposal rates, the landfill has the capacity to accommodate development in ReGen’s service area for more than 100 years of waste (ReGen Monterey, 2018).

Discussion/Mitigation
a) – c) No Impact. The proposed project involves vegetation maintenance at Crespi Pond. As such, project activities would not require water, wastewater, electric, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. The project would not include construction and would not change the existing use of the site. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts from the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electricity, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities; insufficient water supplies; or inadequate capacity of the wastewater treatment provider to serve the project. d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project does not require construction; however, vegetation removed as part of project activities would generate solid green waste. Approximately 0.55 acre of vegetation would be removed and would be dewatered prior to disposal. Due to the relatively small scale of the project, solid waste produced from project activities would not contribute solid waste in excess of local standards or regulations or in a manner that would exceed the capacity of the local landfill or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant. e) No Impact. The project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations. Therefore, no impact would occur due to noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations related to solid waste.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on utilities and service systems.

PGCC 5-6-26
352
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 55 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines, or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Environmental Setting
CALFIRE recommends or adopts fire hazard severity zones in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs) and State Responsibility Areas (SRAs), respectively. CALFIRE identifies the project site as a LRA and the project site does not border a SRA (CALFIRE, 2024a). The project site is located outside of the Pacific Grove LRA’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and is considered to have low susceptibility to wildfires (CALFIRE, 2024b; City of Pacific Grove, 2020).

Discussion/Mitigation
a – d) No Impact. The proposed project is not located in a VHFHSZ, nor is the project site in or near an SRA (CALFIRE, 2024b). Additionally, the project would involve clearing vegetation within Crespi Pond using barge-mounted excavation equipment (i.e., Aquamog). As such, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risk at the project site or in the project vicinity; require installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk; create a scenario that would increase the risk of exposure to wildfires and resulting pollution concentrations; or expose people or structures to significant wildfire related risks such as landslides, runoff, slope instability, or drainage changes. Furthermore, project activities would occur entirely outside of roadways and the project is not located on a major evacuation route (City of Pacific Grove, 1994). Therefore, the proposed project would not impair any emergency response or evacuation plans. For these reasons, the project would have no impact on impairment of an emergency response or evacuation plan; exacerbation of wildfire risks; installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure; or exposure of people or structures to significant risks resulting from flooding, landslides, runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have no impact related to wildfires.

PGCC 5-6-26
353
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 56 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
This page was left intentionally blank
PGCC 5-6-26
354
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 57 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
VI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
NOTE: If there are significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and no feasible project alternatives are available, then complete the mandatory findings of significance and attach to this initial study as an appendix. This is the first step for starting the environmental impact report (EIR) process.

Does the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
c) Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?

DISCUSSION/MITIGATION
a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project consists of temporary removal of emergent wetland vegetation in Crespi Pond. No construction activities would be required; however, removal of wetland vegetation could impact nesting birds and other protected avian species and could temporarily impact water quality. Additionally, the proposed project would temporarily disturb sensitive habitats during vegetation removal, which would remove approximately 43 percent of the existing emergent wetland vegetation in the pond. However, project activities would occur outside of the nesting and breeding season for protected species and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 – BIO-3C, identified in Section 4, Biological Resources, would be implemented to reduce all potentially significant impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level. All other impacts to biological resources would be less-than-significant and would not require mitigation to reduce impacts. The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory; the project would be required to implement provisions of a City-issued CDP which would ensure protection of any previously unidentified cultural resources and no additional mitigation would be required to lessen impacts. Therefore, the project would result in a potentially significant impact to biological resources that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this document and impacts to historical, archaeological, and cultural resources would be less-than-significant.

PGCC 5-6-26
355
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 58 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
b) – c) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts or cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The proposed project would consist of vegetation removal to enhance wildlife habitat. The project would be limited in scope (i.e., approximately 0.55 acre) and impacts would be temporary. Additionally, impacts identified as being potentially significant can be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures identified throughout this document. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to cumulatively considerable impacts or environmental effects that would cause adverse effects on human beings.

PGCC 5-6-26
356
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 59 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
VII. FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FEES
ASSESSMENT OF FEE:

The State Legislature, through the enactment of SB 1535, revoked the authority of lead agencies to determine that a project subject to CEQA review had a “de minimis” (minimal) effect on fish and wildlife resources under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Projects that were determined to have a “de minimis” effect were exempt from payment of the filing fees.

SB 1535 has eliminated the provision for a determination of “de minimis” effect by the lead agency; consequently, all land development projects that are subject to environmental review are now subject to the filing fees, unless the California Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that the project would have no effect on fish and wildlife resources.

To be considered for determination of “no effect” on fish and wildlife resources, development applicants must submit a form requesting such determination to the Department of Fish and Game. Forms may be obtained by contacting the Department by telephone at (916) 631-0606 or through the Department’s website at www.dfg.ca.gov.

Conclusion: The project will be required to pay the fee.

Evidence: This Initial Study finds an overall less-than-significant impact on biological resources with incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 – BIO-3C.

PGCC 5-6-26
357
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 60 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
This page was left intentionally blank
PGCC 5-6-26
358
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 61 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
VIII. REFERENCES

1. Albion. 2024. Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the Crespi Pond Project, Pacific Grove, California.

2. [CALFIRE] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2024a. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Available online at: https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d00 8 3. [CALFIRE] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2024b. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CALFIRE. Available from: https://34c031f8-c9fd4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/city-maps2/pacific_grove.pdf?rev=c3e42e2b42324936bac9f84f0f00b8fa&hash=A8D48C04BD5F96EAC576B E61C42D0186

4. [CDC] California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder Map.

Available online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/

5. [CDC] California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder.

Available online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/

6. [CDC] California Department of Conservation. 2024a. Fault Activity Map of California. Available from: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/app/

7. [CDC] California Department of Conservation. 2024b. Monterey County Tsunami Hazard Areas.

Available from: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/monterey

8. California Department of Finance. 2024. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2024 with 2020 Census Benchmark. Available for download from:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-population-estimates-for-citiescounties-and-the-state-2021-2024-with-2020-census-benchmark/

9. [CDTSC] California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2024. EnviroStor. Available from:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=pebble+beach%2C+ca

10. CALFIRE. 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available from:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/

11. Caltrans. 2024. Scenic Highway System Lists. Available from:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-iscenic-highways

12. [CARB] California Air Resources Board. Accessed July 2, 2024. Laws and Regulations. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/laws-and-regulations

13. [CDC] California Department of Conservation. 2021. Update of the Mineral Land Classification for Construction Aggregate Resources in the Monterey Bay Production-Consumption Region. Special Report 251. Available for download from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/mlc/

14. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Central Coast Basin Plan. Available from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/docs/2 019_basin_plan_r3_complete_webaccess.pdf

15. City of Pacific Grove. 2020. City of Pacific Grove Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances.

Available from:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/our_city/departments/community_development/programs___ projects/local_coastal_program.php#outer-271

16. City of Pacific Grove. 1994. City of Pacific Grove General Plan. Available from:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/our_city/departments/community_development/programs___ projects/general_plan.php#outer-269
PGCC 5-6-26
359
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 62 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

17. City of Pacific Grove. 2024a. Pacific Grove Municipal Code. Available from:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/PacificGrove/#!/html/PacificGrove11/PacificGrove1196.h tml

18. City of Pacific Grove. 2024b. Pacific Grove Fire Department Home Page. Available from:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/our_city/departments/fire___emergency_preparedness/index.p hp

19. Columbia Association. No Date. Noise Impacts Related to Lake Restoration Activities at Lake Kittamaqundi and Lake Elkhorn. Available from: https://www.columbiaassociation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/03/DredgingKittamaqundiNoisep-id=162.pdf

20. [COSFM] California Office of the State Fire Marshal. 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps.

Available online at: https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d00 8 21. Denise Duffy & Associates. 2024. Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report.

22. [FEMA] Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2023. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Available from: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd

23. Monterey County. 2024. Geologic Hazards Map for Monterey County. Available from:
https://montereyco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=80aadc38518a45889751e9 7546ca5c53

24. [MBARD] Monterey Bay Air Resources District. 2017. 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan.

Available at https://www.mbard.org/files/6632732f5/2012-2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf

25. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at: https://www.mbard.org/files/0ce48fe68/CEQA+Guidelines.pdf

26. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2016. Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Available online at:
https://www.mbard.org/files/b4d8179d3/CEQA+Implementation.pdf.

27. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2024. Soil Map. Available from:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

28. Pacific Grove Public Works. 2024. Utility Services. Available from:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/our_city/departments/public_works/utility_services/index.php

29. Rajapakse, Ruwan. 2016. Pile Design and Construction Rules of Thumb (Second Edition). Chapter 8 – Design of Driven Piles. pp. 99-141. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/expansive-soil

30. ReGen Monterey. 2018. Monterey Peninsula Landfill. Available from:
https://regenmonterey.org/monterey-peninsula-landfill/

31. Rosenberg, Lewis, I. and Clark, Joseph C. 2001. Paleontological Resources of Monterey County, California. Available online at: https://purl.stanford.edu/xc583rw0668.

32. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2024a. EnviroStor Database Map. Available from:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=pebble+beach%2C+ca

33. [SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2024b. GeoTracker PFAS Map. Available from:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/pfas_map

34. [3CE] Central Coast Community Energy. 2024. About 3CE. Available from: https://3cenergy.org/ PGCC 5-6-26
360
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 63 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
APPENDIX A – CRESPI POND

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT
PGCC 5-6-26
361
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 64 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

This page was left intentionally blank
PGCC 5-6-26
362
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond
Biological Resources Report
February 2024
Prepared for
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Prepared by
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Contact: John Wandke
947 Cass St. Suite 5
Monterey, California 93940
PGCC 5-6-26
363
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond i Biological Resources Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Project Location........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Personnel and Survey Methods ................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Data Sources................................................................................................................................ 5

2.2.1 Botany ..................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Definitions................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.1 Special-Status Species............................................................................................................. 6

2.3.2 Sensitive Habitats.................................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.4.1 Federal Regulations................................................................................................................. 7

2.4.2 State Regulations..................................................................................................................... 8

2.4.3 Local Regulations.................................................................................................................. 11

3.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Field Observations..................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Natural Communities................................................................................................................. 11

3.3 Sensitive Habitats...................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.1 Wetlands and Other Waters................................................................................................... 13

3.3.2 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas............................................................................. 14

3.4 Special-Status Species............................................................................................................... 14

3.4.1 Special Status Wildlife Species............................................................................................. 14

3.4.2 Special-Status Plant Species.................................................................................................. 15

3.5 Habitat Connectivity and Nursery Sites .................................................................................... 15

4.0 IMPACT THRESHOLDS ............................................................................................................. 16

5.0 IMPACTS, AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION MEASURES .................................................... 16

6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 19

FIGURES
Figure 1 - Project Location Map................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 - Survey Area.................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3 - Vegetation Map.......................................................................................................................... 12 PGCC 5-6-26
364
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond ii Biological Resources Report

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. California Natural Diversity Database Report APPENDIX B. IPaC Resource List
APPENDIX C. Special-Status Species Table
APPENDIX D. Wetland Delineation
PGCC 5-6-26
365
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 1 Biological Resources Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Crespi Pond is a freshwater pond partially surrounded by fringe emergent wetland located at Point Piños in the City of Pacific Grove (City), California. It is a unique resource that provides habitat for wildlife, opportunities for birdwatching and scientific study, and is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act). Crespi Pond is also a feature of the municipal golf course and creates a water hazard for golf play between the 16th and 17th holes.

Historically, the City has periodically performed removal of emergent vegetation under a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), or CDP Waiver issued by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to maintain a balance of approximately 70% open water habitat and 30% emergent wetland habitat within Crespi Pond. The City has not performed vegetation maintenance at Crespi Pond since approximately 2015 due to the expiration of previous authorizations. Since that time, emergent vegetation has expanded to occupy approximately 80% of the pond’s surface area. Therefore, the City intends to reinitiate removal of emergent wetland vegetation at Crespi Pond under a new CDP with a five-year term to restore the balance of open water and vegetated habitats. Vegetation maintenance is expected to occur approximately every other year.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A) completed a biological analysis of Crespi Pond and the immediately surrounding area to determine if sensitive biological resources are present or have the potential to occur within and in the vicinity of the site. This report describes the existing biological resources within the project site, including any special-status species or sensitive habitats which occur or have the potential to occur in the area. This report also assesses the potential impacts to biological resources that may result from implementation of the vegetation management activities, and recommends appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, if necessary, to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.1 Project Location
Crespi Pond is located at Point Piños in the City of Pacific Grove and is situated immediately adjacent to Ocean Boulevard within the Point Piños Lighthouse Reservation, between the 16th and 17th holes of the municipal golf course (Figure 1). The project site is located in the Coastal Zone within Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 007-011-006-000 and the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Monterey quadrangle.

1.2 Project Description
The proposed project consists of emergent vegetation removal from the perimeter and central portion of Crespi Pond to maintain approximately 70% open water and 30% emergent vegetation. The purpose of the proposed work is to promote a balance of both vegetated and open water habitats for wildlife. Although alteration of wetlands is prohibited by the City of Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (LUP, City of Pacific Grove, 2020), an exception is provided in §2.2.4 for maintenance of Crespi Pond. The pond has a maximum depth of approximately three feet and receives stormwater inputs as well as irrigation runoff and natural input from rainfall. Crespi Pond occasionally goes dry in drought years and when full, discharges through a culvert beneath Ocean View Boulevard to the adjacent beach.

Emergent vegetation to be removed includes primarily California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus) with a lesser component of narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia). Approximately 0.55 acres of emergent PGCC 5-6-26
366
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
367
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 3 Biological Resources Report
vegetation is proposed for removal to increase the amount of open water to approximately 70%. This constitutes removal of approximately 43% of the existing emergent wetland vegetation. The work will be performed using barge-mounted excavation equipment (i.e., Aquamog). The barge will be launched from the northern bank of the pond into the remaining area of open water. After the barge is launched, emergent vegetation will be removed down to the root mass using a hydraulic arm and clam bucket attachment mounted on the deck of the barge. Removal of the root zone may deepen the pond between approximately one and two feet. As vegetation is removed, it will be piled along the edge of the pond to allow dewatering.

Once the piles of vegetation have been sufficiently dewatered, removed vegetation will be loaded using an excavator into dump trucks for off-haul and proper disposal as green waste.

The project description includes scheduling the project between September 1 and February 1 to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and other protected avian species.

2.0 METHODS

2.1 Personnel and Survey Methods
DD&A Senior Environmental Scientist John Wandke conducted surveys of the project area on January 9 and 29, 2024 to characterize habitats present within the project site, identify any special-status plant or wildlife species or suitable habitat for those species within the site, and conduct a wetland delineation. The January 29, 2024, survey date also included both a day and night visual survey for herpetofauna. The 2.4- acre survey area (Figure 2) includes all of Crespi Pond, including proposed areas of disturbance, staging, stockpiling, and access areas, plus a buffer of approximately 25 feet to assess potential impacts to surrounding habitat. Survey methods included walking the survey area and using aerial maps and GPS to identify general habitat types and potential sensitive habitat types, conducting a survey for special-status plant species, conducting a reconnaissance-level wildlife habitat survey to identify any special-status wildlife species or suitable habitat for those species occurring within the site, and conducting the day and night survey for herpetofauna described above.

The survey area was evaluated for botanical resources following the applicable guidelines outlined in Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (Service, 2000), Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW, 2018), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS, 2001).

Surveys also included an assessment of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters within the survey area in accordance with the requirements set forth in The Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual (Manual, Wetland Training Institute, 1995) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (Supplement, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [ACOE], 2008).

PGCC 5-6-26
368
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
369
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 5 Biological Resources Report
Data collected during the surveys were used to assess the environmental conditions of the project site and its surroundings, evaluate environmental constraints at the site and within the local vicinity, and provide a basis for recommendations to minimize and avoid impacts to biological resources.

2.2 Data Sources
Prior to conducting field work, DD&A reviewed literature and data sources to determine the occurrence or potential for occurrence of special-status species within the survey area as follows:
• Current agency status information from the Service and CDFW for species listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA or CESA, and those considered CDFW “species of special concern,” including:
­ CNDDB occurrences reports from the Monterey 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle and the four surrounding quadrangles, including Marina, Seaside, Mt. Carmel, and Soberanes Point (CDFW, 2023b; Appendix A); and
­ Service IPaC Resource List (Service, 2024a; Appendix B). • The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2023); • The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS, 2024);
• The National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (Service, 2024b); and • The National Hydrographic Dataset (USGS, 2023).

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

2.2.1 Botany
Vegetation types identified in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al., 2009) were utilized to determine if vegetation types identified as sensitive on CDFW’s California Natural Communities List (CDFW, 2023a) are present within the project site. Information regarding the distribution and habitats of local and state vascular plants was also reviewed (Howitt and Howell, 1964 and 1973; Munz and Keck, 1973; Baldwin et al., 2012; Matthews and Mitchell, 2015; Jepson Flora Project, 2022). All plants observed within the project site during the evaluation were identified to species or intraspecific taxon necessary to eliminate them as being special-status species using keys and descriptions in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Edition 2 (Baldwin et al., 2012) and The Plants of Monterey County an Illustrated Field Key (Matthews and Mitchell, 2015). Scientific nomenclature for plant species identified within this document follows Baldwin, et. Al, (2012); common names follow Matthews and Mitchell (2015). A full botanical inventory was not recorded for the project site but the dominant species within each habitat were noted. Dominant plant species are those which are more numerous than their competitors in an ecological community or make up more of the biomass; generally, the species that are most abundant. Most ecological communities are defined by their dominant species.

The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) Inventory (Cal-IPC, 2024) was reviewed to determine if any invasive plant species are present within the project site.

PGCC 5-6-26
370
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 6 Biological Resources Report

2.2.2 Wildlife
The following literature and data sources were reviewed: CDFW reports on special-status wildlife (Remsen, 1978; Williams, 1986; Jennings and Hayes, 1994; Thelander, 1994; Thomson et. Al, 2016); California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program species-habitat models (Zeiner et al., 1988 and 1990); and general wildlife references (Stebbins, 1972, 1985, and 2003).

2.3 Definitions

2.3.1 Special-Status Species
Special-status species are those plants and animals that have been formally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened or are candidates for such listing under the ESA or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Listed species are afforded legal protection under the ESA and CESA. Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the CEQA Section 15380 are also considered special-status species. Animals on the CDFW’s list of “species of special concern” (most of which are species whose breeding populations in California may face extirpation if current population trends continue) meet this definition and are typically provided management consideration through the CEQA process, although they are not legally protected under the ESA or CESA. Additionally, the CDFW also includes some animal species that are not assigned any of the other status designations on their “Special Animals” list; however, these species have no legal or protection status.

Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) or included in CNPS California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B are also treated as special-status species as they meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 of the CESA and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. In general, the CDFW requires that plant species on CRPR 1A (Plants presumed extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere), CRPR 1B (Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere), CRPR 2A (Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere); and CRPR 2B (Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere) of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2024) be fully considered during the preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA. CNPS CRPR 4 species (plants of limited distribution) may, but generally do not, meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 of the CESA, and are not typically considered in environmental documents relating to CEQA. While other species (i.e., CRPR 3 or 4 species) are sometimes found in database searches or within the literature, these were not included within the analysis as they did not meet the definitions of Section 2062 and 2067 of the CESA.

Raptors (e.g., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected in California under Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” In addition, fully protected species under the Fish and Game Code Section 3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), Section 5515 (fish), and Section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians) are also considered specialstatus animal species. Species with no formal special-status designation but thought by experts to be rare or in serious decline may also be considered special-status animal species in some cases, depending on project-specific analysis and relevant, localized conservation needs or precedence.

PGCC 5-6-26
371
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 7 Biological Resources Report

2.3.2 Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive habitats include riparian corridors, wetlands, habitats for legally protected species, areas of high biological diversity, areas supporting rare or special-status wildlife habitat, and unusual or regionally restricted vegetation types. Vegetation types considered sensitive include those listed on CDFW’s California Natural Communities List (i.e., those habitats that are rare or endangered within the borders of California) (CDFW, 2023a), those that are occupied by species listed under the ESA or are critical habitat in accordance with the ESA, and those that are defined as ESHA under the California Coastal Act. Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in city or county general plans or ordinances. Sensitive habitats are regulated under federal regulations (such as the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands), state regulations (such as CEQA and the CDFW Streambed Alteration Program), or local ordinances or policies (such as city or county tree ordinances and general plan policies).

2.4 Regulatory Setting
The following regulatory discussion describes the laws and ordinances that may be applicable to the project.

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

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

Clean Water Act
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the U.S. are defined broadly as waters susceptible to use in commerce (including waters subject to tides, interstate waters, and interstate wetlands) and other waters (such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds) (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas are identified as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface PGCC 5-6-26
372
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 8 Biological Resources Report
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils conditions.” Under Section 401 of the CWA, any applicant receiving a Section 404 permit from the ACOE must also obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is issued when a project is demonstrated to comply with state water quality standards and other aquatic resource protection requirements.

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

The USFWS is responsible for overseeing compliance with the MBTA.

2.4.2 State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The CESA was enacted in 1984. The California Code of Regulations (Title 14, §670.5) lists animal species considered endangered or threatened by the state. Section 2090 of CESA requires state agencies to comply with endangered species protection and recovery and to promote conservation of these species. Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits “take” of any species that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species. “Take” is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” A Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit from the CDFW may be obtained to authorize “take” of any state listed species.

California Native Plant Protection Act
The CNPPA of 1977 directed CDFW to carry out the legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and Endangered plants in the State.” The CNPPA prohibits importing rare and Endangered plants into California, taking rare and Endangered plants, and selling rare and Endangered plants. The CESA and CNPPA authorized the Fish and Game Commission to designate endangered, threatened, and rare species and to regulate the taking of these species (§2050-2098, Fish and Game Code). Plants listed as rare under the CNPPA are not protected under CESA; however, these plants may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research.

California Fish and Game Code
Birds. Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3511 prohibits take or possession of fully protected birds. Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame birds designated under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Section 3800 prohibits take of nongame birds.

Fully Protected Species. The classification of fully protected was the state’s initial effort in the 1960’s to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish (§5515), mammals (§4700), amphibians and reptiles (§5050), and birds (§3511). Most fully protected species have also been listed as threatened or endangered species under the more recent PGCC 5-6-26
373
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 9 Biological Resources Report
endangered species laws and regulations. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.

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

Lake or Streambed Alteration. Sections 1600-1607 of the Fish and Game Code require any agency that proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of or substantially change the bed or bank of a river, stream, or lake to notify CDFW before beginning construction. If CDFW determines that the project may substantially and adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required. CDFW’s jurisdictional limits are usually defined by the tops of the stream or lake banks, or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is wider.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 (Porter-Cologne) is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality and applies to surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater, and to both point and nonpoint sources. Under the Porter-Cologne, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) has the ultimate authority over State water rights and water quality policy. However, Porter-Cologne also establishes nine RWQCBs to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local/regional level.

The project site is located within Region 3 – Central Coast RWQCB. Porter-Cologne incorporates many provisions of the federal CWA, such as delegation to the State Board and RWQCBs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program.

Under Porter-Cologne, the state must adopt water quality policies, plans, and objectives that protect the state’s waters for the use and enjoyment of the people. Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegate to the nine RWQCBs. The regional boards are required to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas in the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. The Porter-Cologne sets forth the obligations of the State Board and RWQCBs to adopt and periodically update water quality control plans (basin plans). The act also requires waste dischargers to notify the RWQCBs of such activities through filing of Reports of Waste Discharge (RWD) and authorizes the State Board and RWQCBs to issue and enforce waste discharge requirements (WDRs), NPDES permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, or other approvals. The RWQCBs also have authority to issue waivers to RWD requirements and WDRs for broad categories of “low threat” discharge activities that have minimal potential for adverse water quality effects, when implemented according to prescribed terms and conditions.

The term “Waters of the State” is defined by Porter-Cologne as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The RWQCB protects all waters in its regulatory scope but has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters, including isolated wetlands, and waters that may not be regulated by the ACOE under Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program, which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne.

PGCC 5-6-26
374
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 10 Biological Resources Report
California Coastal Act
The CCC was established by voter initiative in 1972 (Proposition 20) and later made permanent by the California State Legislature through adoption of the Coastal Act of 1976. The CCC, in partnership with coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone. California’s coastal zone generally extends 1,000 yards inland from the mean high tide line. In significant coastal estuarine habitat and recreational areas, it extends inland to the first major ridgeline or five miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is less. In developed urban areas, the boundary is generally less than 1,000 yards. Development activities, which are broadly defined by the Coastal Act to include (among others) construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters, generally require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from either the CCC or the local government if a Local Coastal Program (LCP) has been certified. After certification of a LCP, coastal development permit authority is delegated to the appropriate local government, but the CCC retains original permit jurisdiction over certain specified lands (such as tidelands and public trust lands). The Commission also has appellate authority over development approved by local governments in specified geographic areas as well as certain other developments. A CDP is required in addition to any other permit required from resource agencies. The CCC certified the City of Pacific Grove’s LCP, consisting of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and implementation Plan (IP), as well as the appeal jurisdiction map on March 11, 2020.

The CCC or the local government may designate areas of rare or unique biological value, such as wetland and riparian habitat and habitats for special-status species, as ESHA. Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act defines an “environmentally sensitive area” as any area in which plant or animal life or their habitat are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. Development is restricted within the coastal zone and prohibited within designated ESHA, unless the development is coastal dependent and does not have a significant effect on the resources. Section 30240 of the Coastal Act states that “environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.” This section also states that “development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.” Wetlands, including Crespi Pond, are designated as ESHA by the City of Pacific Grove LUP (See Section 2.4.3 for additional discussion).

California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project
In 2010, CDFW and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) commissioned a team of consultants to produce a statewide assessment of essential habitat connectivity using the best available science, data sets, spatial analyses and modeling techniques. The goal was to identify Essential Habitat Connectivity Area (EHCA), which are large remaining blocks of intact habitat or natural landscape and model linkages between them that need to be maintained, particularly as corridors for wildlife. Over sixty federal, state, local, tribal and non-governmental organizations collaborated in the creation of a statewide wildlife habitat connectivity map using a GIS-based modeling approach, an assessment of the biological value of identified connectivity areas, and a strategic plan that helps varied end users interpret and use the statewide map and outlines a methodology necessary for completing connectivity analyses at finer spatial scales. The project site is not located within an EHCA.

PGCC 5-6-26
375
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 11 Biological Resources Report

2.4.3 Local Regulations
Local Coastal Program
As noted above, the City’s LCP was certified by the CCC on March 11, 2020 and designates Crespi Pond as ESHA. The LUP sets forth standards for protection of ESHA, including wetlands, and provides an exception under Water and Marine Resource policy §2.2.4 MAR-2 for maintenance dredging at Crespi Pond:

MAR-2: Wetlands including Crespi Pond and the Majella Slough riparian area shall be considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, and governed by Coastal Act policies 30233,and 30240.

No alteration of freshwater wetlands (including Crespi Pond and Majella Slough) shall be allowed, except for maintenance dredging and similar activities essential for restoration and/or enhancement of natural habitats, as well as other uses and development specified in the Biological Resources and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas chapter of this Land Use Plan, and only where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects.

Tree Ordinance
The City of Pacific Grove municipal code chapter 12.20.020 provides definitions for five categories of protected trees that require a permit for removal. Definitions include, 1) native trees which include all Gowen cypress, regardless of size, and all coast live oak, Monterey pine, shore pine, Torrey pine, and Monterey cypress over six inches in trunk diameter, measured at 54 inches above grade; 2) monarch butterfly habitat trees, including all trees within 100 yards of Monarch butterfly sanctuaries; and 3) public trees, including all trees on public property six inches in trunk diameter, measured at 54 inches above grade. The project does not propose removal or trimming of any trees.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Field Observations
Surveys performed by DD&A on January 9 and 29, 2024 documented presence of wetland habitat dominated by California bulrush marsh at Crespi Pond. No special status species were observed. A variety of birds were observed utilizing the wetland habitat and included American coot (Fulica americana), redwind blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans). During the day and night survey performed on January 29, 2024, no herpetofauna were observed at Crespi Pond. During the night survey, Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla) vocalizations were heard in a distant area of the golf course, but none were seen or heard at Crespi Pond. In addition, no bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) or California red-legged frogs (CRLF, Rana draytonii) were observed or heard during either the day or night survey. However, abundant crayfish of variable size classes were observed within the pond during the night survey as well as an unidentified species of fish. Crayfish and many species of fish are known to predate on eggs and larvae of CRLF, thereby reducing habitat quality and likelihood of occurrence.

3.2 Natural Communities
Within the 2.4-acre survey area, field mapping determined the presence of approximately 1.27 acres of California bulrush marsh, 0.03 acres of poison hemlock-fennel patches, 0.75 acres of developed-golf course, and 0.36 acres of open water. A map of vegetation communities is provided as Figure 3.

PGCC 5-6-26
376
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
377
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 13 Biological Resources Report
California bulrush marsh
• A Manual of California Vegetation classification(s): Schoenoplectus californicus Herbaceous Alliance
• CDFW California Natural Communities List: Sensitive
Emergent wetland vegetation at Crespi Pond is dominated by dense stands of California bulrush. At Crespi Pond, this species can be found growing out of saturated soils along the margins of the pond and from areas of deeper water up to three feet deep in the central area of the pond. Other plant species found in this community at Crespi Pond include narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), and silverweed (Potentilla anserina).

Poison hemlock – fennel patches
• A Manual of California Vegetation classification(s): Conium maculatum-Foeniculum vulgare Herbaceous Alliance
• CDFW California Natural Communities List: Not sensitive This plant community occurs adjacent to the eastern edge of the pond and is dominated by poison hemlock.

Although included in the alliance, sweet fennel is not found at Crespi Pond. Other plant species that occur within this community at Crespi Pond include wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and occasional alkali heath (Frankenia salina).

Developed - Golf Course
• A Manual of California Vegetation classification(s): None • CDFW California Natural Communities List: Not sensitive Golf Course turf occurs around the margins of Crespi Pond along the top-of-bank. Golf course turf consists primarily of kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum), which forms a dense perennial mat via creeping rhizomes and stolons. At the southern edge of Crespi Pond, a grouping of three Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparus macrocarpa) trees occurs.

3.3 Sensitive Habitats

3.3.1 Wetlands and Other Waters
Based on the January 29, 2024 wetland delineation (Appendix D), the project site contains 1.30 acres of wetlands under the jurisdiction of the CCC, as well as 0.36 acres of open water. Although presence of dominant obligate wetland vegetation and wetland hydrology was observed, Crespi Pond is not a potentially federally jurisdictional wetland under the current rule (EPA, 2023), due to the lack of a continuous surface connection to Traditional Navigable Waters (TNW), which in this case is the Pacific Ocean. Similarly, the unvegetated open water areas of Crespi Pond up to the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) are not potentially federally jurisdictional Other Waters under the current rule. However, all the , California bulrush marsh areas, and poison hemlock patches would qualify as wetlands under the Coastal Act. These Coastal Act wetlands, as well as the open water areas are considered ESHA by the CCC. In addition, the project site would likely be subject to regulation by CDFW under the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program.

PGCC 5-6-26
378
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 14 Biological Resources Report

3.3.2 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
As noted above, Crespi Pond meets the definition of a Coastal Act wetland and therefore its areas of emergent wetland and open water qualify as ESHA. Furthermore, wetlands, including Crespi Pond, are identified as ESHA in the City of Pacific Grove LUP.

3.4 Special-Status Species
Published occurrence data within the project area and surrounding USGS quadrangles were evaluated to compile a table of special-status species known to occur in the vicinity of the survey area (see “Methods”).

Each of these species was evaluated for their likelihood to occur within and immediately adjacent to the survey area (Appendix C). Only the special-status species that are known to or have been determined to have a moderate or high potential to occur within or immediately adjacent to the survey area are discussed below. All other species evaluated are unlikely to occur or have a low potential to occur based on the species-specific reasons presented in Appendix C, are therefore unlikely to be impacted by the project, and are not discussed further.

3.4.1 Special Status Wildlife Species
Nesting Raptors and Other Protected Avian Species
Raptors, their nests, and other nesting birds are protected under California Fish and Game Code. While the life histories of these species vary, overlapping nesting (approximately February through August) and foraging similarities allow for their concurrent discussion. Most raptors are breeding residents throughout most of the wooded portions of the state. Stands of live oak, riparian deciduous, or other forest habitats, as well as open grasslands, are used most frequently for nesting. Breeding occurs February through August, with peak activity May through July. Prey for these species includes small birds, small mammals, and some reptiles and amphibians. Many raptor species hunt in open woodland and habitat edges.

Crespi Pond is a well-known birding location due to its habitat conditions and location along the coastline near the tip of the Monterey Peninsula. Nesting birds could potentially utilize a variety of habitats within or adjacent to the survey area, especially the California bulrush marsh and poison hemlock patches. Birds could also nest in the Monterey cypress tree located at the southern edge of Crespi Pond or in the nearby hedgerow of Monterey cypress trees that encircle the water treatment plant. Raptors could also potentially nest in Monterey cypress trees, especially the grouping of taller Monterey cypress trees east of Crespi Pond between the 17th green, driving range and 18th fairway.

Tricolored blackbird
The tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is a state threatened species and is also protected by California Fish & Game Code and the MBTA. This species is common locally throughout the Central Valley and in coastal districts from Sonoma County south. These birds are summer residents in northeastern California, occurring regularly only at Tule Lake, but found as far south as Honey Lake in some years. In winter, this species becomes more widespread along the central coast and San Francisco Bay area (Grinnell and Miller, 1944). Tricolored blackbirds breed near fresh water, preferably in emergent wetlands with tall, dense cattails or tules, but also in thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose, and tall herbs, which also serve as their preferred nesting habitat. Nests are built of mud and plant materials over or near fresh water, especially in emergent wetlands. This species is highly colonial, and the minimum nesting colony size is about 50 pairs (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Drinking water is probably required, at least when seeds and grains are the major foods.

PGCC 5-6-26
379
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 15 Biological Resources Report
California bulrush marsh and poison hemlock patches at the project site have a low potential for occurrence of tricolored blackbird nesting colonies, but occasionally are occupied by individuals or small groupings of tricolored blackbirds during the fall and winter months. The low potential for a tricolored blackbird nesting colony is supported by the fact that nesting tricolored blackbirds have not been documented from Crespi Pond, which is an eBird hotspot and is frequented by birders. Crespi Pond is also not identified as a nesting location in previous literature on the topic, including Roberson and Tenny (1993) and Colibri Ecological Consulting (2022), and is not identified as an occurrence in the CNDDB. The CNDDB reports eight tricolored blackbird occurrences within the quadrangles reviewed, the nearest of which is an April 2015 record from Locke Paddon Park (occurrence #396) approximately eight miles northeast of the project site in the City of Marina, which is described as a possible nesting site. Other documented nesting sites in the region occur at inland locations including Laguna Seca (occurrences #868 and #23), nettle patches on the former Fort Ord outside of but near the quadrangles reviewed (occurrence #986, #196, and #867) and adjacent private property (occurrence #431), and four locations in the Carmel Valley area at the Santa Lucia Preserve (occurrence #871, #367, #869, #870).

As noted above, multiple winter observations of tricolored blackbirds at Crespi Pond by citizen scientists are recorded in the eBird database. These observations have primarily included males with some immature individuals as well as females observed within the California bulrush marsh at Crespi Pond and co-mingling with red-winged blackbirds. Observation dates range from 1980 to 2020, are associated with the fall months of September, October and November, except for one June record from 1982, and estimate between one and 94 individuals (eBird, 2021).

3.4.2 Special-Status Plant Species
A botanical survey was conducted within the survey area to identify special-status plant species or habitat for these species within the survey area on January 29, 2024. With the exception of Monterey cypress, no special-status plant species were observed during the survey. Although Monterey cypress is a CRPR 1B species, the grouping of three Monterey cypress trees at the southern end of the survey area are not associated with the native stands in Pebble Beach and Point Lobos State Reserve, and thus are not afforded the same protection. These trees would be covered by the City of Pacific Grove tree ordinance. However, the project does not propose to trim or remove any trees. Although the survey was performed outside of the blooming period for most species identified in the records search, none of these species were determined to have potential to occur within the survey area for the species-specific reasons presented in Appendix C.

3.5 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. The dense stands of emergent wetland vegetation at Crespi Pond would be considered regular a nesting site for a variety of avian species and therefore could therefore qualify as a nursery site. Removal of emergent wetland vegetation as a result of the project could temporarily impede the use of this nursery site by avian species. As emergent vegetation re-grows from existing root systems, the structural diversity provided by existing mature emergent vegetation and new growth of a differing height and density may actually improve the area as a nursery site.

PGCC 5-6-26
380
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 16 Biological Resources Report

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 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.

5.0 IMPACTS, AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION MEASURES
The project has the potential to impact nesting raptors and other nesting avian species and could potentially impact wintering tricolored blackbirds. The project will also temporarily impact sensitive habitats, including a sensitive natural community and ESHA associated with wetlands and the open waters of Crespi Pond. Avoidance and minimization 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: Raptors and other protected avian species have the potential to occur within the survey area. 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. This would be a potentially significant impact that is avoided by a complete prohibition of vegetation removal during the breeding and nesting season and scheduling the project between September 1 and February 1, as set forth in the project description (Section 1.2). No further avoidance or minimization measures are required to avoid or reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level under CEQA.

Potential Impact 2: Tricolored blackbirds are known to occasionally utilize the survey area during the fall and winter months (non-breeding). If present, project activities could potentially affect the behavior of wintering tricolored blackbirds. This could be interpreted as harassment of a state listed species under CESA and could potentially be considered take. This would be a significant impact under CEQA and in PGCC 5-6-26
381
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 17 Biological Resources Report
conflict with State law. Implementation of BIO 2A will remove the potential for take and reduce impacts during project activities to a less-than-significant level under CEQA.

BIO-2A: A pre-construction survey for tricolored blackbirds will be performed each morning by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of project activities. The biologist will train a designated monitor on the construction crew to identify the species. Once the biologist is satisfied that the designated monitor can identify the species, that individual will conduct the surveys prior to each day’s work. The biologist will remain on call and available to respond to the designated monitor’s request to confirm a sighting. The biologist will conduct spot checks in addition to weekly visits to ensure the mitigation is being implemented in a satisfactory manner. If tricolored blackbirds are identified, project activities shall not be allowed to proceed until subsequent surveys can confirm that the birds have left the area of their own volition.

Sensitive Habitats
Potential Impact 3: Sensitive habitats present at the project site, which include California bulrush marsh, a sensitive natural community, and EHSA associated with wetlands and open waters of Crespi Pond will be temporarily impacted by vegetation removal, which will remove approximately 43% percent of the existing emergent wetland vegetation. This impact will temporarily reduce wetland habitat. Over time, emergent wetland vegetation will re-colonize the pond. No placement of fill or permanent changes to wetlands will result from the proposed project. Wetlands and open waters identified within the survey area are jurisdictional under the CCC and may also be regulated by CDFW under the Lake and Streambed Program. Unauthorized impacts to sensitive habitats could occur if construction activities occur outside of the proposed work limits or if construction activities result in erosion and sedimentation to adjacent habitats.

Additionally, unauthorized impacts to sensitive habitats could occur if an accident during construction were to result in the release of hazardous materials into the adjacent sensitive habitats. Implementation of BIO 3A – 3D will reduce impacts during project activities to a less-than-significant level under CEQA.

BIO-3A: Subsequent to the initial maintenance vegetation removal, vegetation removal will occur no more than once every two years and shall include the removal of no more than 50% of the emergent vegetation present at that time to minimize the scope and scale of the temporary loss of wetland function and habitat value.

BIO-3B: Project activities shall be conducted when the water level in Crespi Pond is below the elevation of the overflow culvert to ensure that no water or suspended sediment is discharged to the adjacent beach or Monterey Bay.

BIO-3C: Equipment, fuels, lubricants, and solvents shall be stored in a designated staging area at least 100 feet from aquatic resources.

PGCC 5-6-26
382
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 18 Biological Resources Report
Wildlife Migratory Corridors and Nursery Sites
Potential Impact 4: Project activities will not impact wildlife migratory corridors linkages but may impede the use of nursery sites by temporarily reducing the available area of emergent wetland vegetation that is utilized by nesting avian species. Emergent wetland vegetation will re-colonize the pond from existing root masses. This would be a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of BIO-3A.

Local Policies and Ordinances
The project does not conflict with any local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. An exception for maintenance activities in wetland habitat and ESHA at Crespi Pond is included in the City of Pacific Grove LUP §2.2.4 MAR-2.

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.

PGCC 5-6-26
383
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 19 Biological Resources Report

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.

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 January 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.

City of Pacific Grove. 2020. City of Pacific Grove Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances. Certified by California Coastal Commission, March 11, 2020. Pacific Grove, California.

CNPS. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v-9.5). Available online at https://rareplants.cnps.org/
Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC. 2022. 2022 Tricolored Blackbird Statewide Survey. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California. eBird. 2024. 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.

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. NongameHeritage 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
PGCC 5-6-26
384
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 20 Biological Resources Report
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.

Meese, R.J. 2017. Results of the 2017 Tricolored Blackbird Statewide Survey. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Branch, Nongame Wildlife Program Report 2017-04, Sacramento, California. 22 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.

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.

Spautz, H., Nur, N., and Stralberg D. 2005. California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) distribution and abundance in relation to habitat and landscape features in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report PSW-GTR-191.

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

PGCC 5-6-26
385
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 21 Biological Resources Report
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). 2023. Web Soil Survey. Available Online at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2023. 40 CFR Part 120: Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States” Conforming. Federal Register Vol. 88 (173), pp. 61964-61969.

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). 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog.

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.

Roberson D. and Tenney C. 1993. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Monterey County. Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society.

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

Service. 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. Accessed June 2023. Available Online at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2024. National Hydrography Dataset.

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.

PGCC 5-6-26
386
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Crespi Pond 22 Biological Resources Report
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 5-6-26
387
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX A
California Natural Diversity Database Report
PGCC 5-6-26
388
PGCC 5-6-26

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
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 None 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 G4T2 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
Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii
Congdon's tarplant
PDAST4R0P1 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1
Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Monterey (3612158)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Soberanes Point (3612148)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Mt. Carmel (3612147)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Seaside (3612157)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Marina (3612167))
Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Friday, December 15, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 5 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
PGCC 5-6-26
389
PGCC 5-6-26

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
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
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
ARAAD02030 Proposed
Threatened
None G3G4 S3 SSC
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
Report Printed on Friday, December 15, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 5 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
PGCC 5-6-26
390
PGCC 5-6-26

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 palmeri var. involucratus
Carmel Valley bush-mallow
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
Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens
northern curly-leaved monardella
PDLAM18162 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Monolopia gracilens
woodland woollythreads
PDAST6G010 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Report Printed on Friday, December 15, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 5 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
PGCC 5-6-26
391
PGCC 5-6-26

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
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
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 G2 S2 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
Stebbinsoseris decipiens
Santa Cruz microseris
PDAST6E050 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Report Printed on Friday, December 15, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 5 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
PGCC 5-6-26
392
PGCC 5-6-26

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
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: 91
Report Printed on Friday, December 15, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 5 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
PGCC 5-6-26
393
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX B
IPaC Resource List
PGCC 5-6-26
394
PGCC 5-6-26

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/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 1 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
395
PGCC 5-6-26

 [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/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 2 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
396
PGCC 5-6-26

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/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 3 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
397
PGCC 5-6-26

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
Fishes

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 Sternula 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
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
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

NAME STATUS
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 4 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
398
PGCC 5-6-26

Insects
Crustaceans
Flowering Plants
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

NAME STATUS
Beach Layia Layia carnosa
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6728
Threatened
Menzies' Wall�ower Erysimum menziesii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2935
Endangered
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 5 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
399
PGCC 5-6-26

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

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
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 • 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 1 2
3 IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 6 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
400
PGCC 5-6-26

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 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.

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/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 7 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
401
PGCC 5-6-26

probability of presence breeding season survey e�ort no data

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.

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 your project area.

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 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?
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 8 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
402
PGCC 5-6-26

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 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:
1 2
3 IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 9 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
403
PGCC 5-6-26

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.

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
• 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 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
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
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 10 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
404
PGCC 5-6-26

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 Scoter Melanitta nigra
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 elsewhere
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
Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla
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 elsewhere
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 11 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
405
PGCC 5-6-26

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis
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 15 to Sep 30
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
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 Eider Somateria mollissima
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 Jun 1 to Sep 30
Common Loon gavia immer
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/4464
Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31
Common Murre Uria aalge
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 Apr 15 to Aug 15
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 12 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
406
PGCC 5-6-26

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
Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis
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/7238
Breeds elsewhere
Manx Shearwater Pu�nus pu�nus
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 Apr 15 to Oct 31
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/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 13 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
407
PGCC 5-6-26

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
Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus
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 elsewhere
Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius
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 elsewhere
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator
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 elsewhere
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus
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 elsewhere
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 14 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
408
PGCC 5-6-26

Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata
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 elsewhere
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis
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 elsewhere
Royal Tern Thalasseus maximus
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 Apr 15 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
South Polar Skua Stercorarius maccormicki
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 elsewhere
Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata
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 elsewhere
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 15 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
409
PGCC 5-6-26

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 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
White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca
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 elsewhere
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
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/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 16 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
410
PGCC 5-6-26

probability of presence breeding season survey e�ort no data survey e�ort (see below) can be used to establish a level of con�dence in the presence 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.

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 your project area.

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/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 17 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
411
PGCC 5-6-26

Allen's
Hummingbird
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Belding's
Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Black
Oystercatcher
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Black Scoter
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Black
Skimmer
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Black Swift
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Black Tern
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Black
Turnstone
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Black-legged
Kittiwake
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Brown
Pelican
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 18 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
412
PGCC 5-6-26

Bullock's
Oriole

BCC - BCR

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC California
Gull
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
California
Thrasher
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Common
Eider
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Common
Loon
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Common
Murre
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Common
Yellowthroat

BCC - BCR
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Lawrence's
Gold�nch
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Long-eared
Owl
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 19 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
413
PGCC 5-6-26

Long-tailed
Duck
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Manx
Shearwater
Non-BCC
Vulnerable

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Marbled
Godwit
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Nuttall's
Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Pomarine
Jaeger
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Red
Phalarope
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Red-breasted
Merganser
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Red-necked
Phalarope
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Red-throated
Loon
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 20 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
414
PGCC 5-6-26

Ring-billed
Gull
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Royal Tern
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Scripps's
Murrelet
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Short-billed
Dowitcher
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
South Polar
Skua
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Surf Scoter
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Tricolored
Blackbird
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Western
Grebe
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
White-winged
Scoter
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Willet
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Wrentit
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 21 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
415
PGCC 5-6-26

Yellow-billed
Magpie
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to 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.

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 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, IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 22 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
416
PGCC 5-6-26

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.

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 IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 23 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
417
PGCC 5-6-26

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 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.

IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 24 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
418
PGCC 5-6-26

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

Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.

This location overlaps the following wetlands:

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.

FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
PEM1Cx

FRESHWATER POND
PUBHx
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website
IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 25 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
419
PGCC 5-6-26

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/MKLLUVX4GJDNDCXHOT... 26 of 26 1/4/2024, 9:06 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
420
PGCC 5-6-26

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX C
Special-Status Species Table
PGCC 5-6-26
421
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
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
Low quality foraging and night roost habitat
are present in Monterey cypress trees
adjacent to the project site. No day or
maternity roosting habitat present within the
project site. The CNDDB reports one 1948
occurrence of this species within the
quadrangles reviewed, located approximately

10.5 miles south of the project site.

Puma concolor
Mountain lion
(Southern
California/Central Coast
ESU)
-- / SC / -- Typically found in pine forest, riparian and oak woodlands, streams, chaparral, and grasslands;
however, also use desert habitats. Require large areas
of relatively undisturbed habitat with adequate
connectivity to allow for dispersal and gene flow.

Generally avoids areas with human disturbance.

Low
Mountain lions have been occasionally
observed within the City of Pacific Grove.

May rarely pass through the Point Piños
Lighthouse Reservation area. However, no
suitable habitat is present within the survey
area.

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.

Low
Low-quality habitat is present within
emergent wetland vegetation within the
survey area. However, thick duff and downed
log habitat elements are missing. The
CNDDB reports five records within the
quadrangles reviewed, but all observations
are more than 50 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 habitat is present within the
survey area.

PGCC 5-6-26
422
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within 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 (nesting colony)
Present (wintering birds)
The survey area is not a known locality for
tricolored blackbird nesting colonies and is
not listed by the CNDDB. The CNDDB
reports eight occurrences within the
quadrangles reviewed, the nearest of which is
an April 2015 record 8.3 miles northeast of
the site at Locke Padden, Marina, described
as a possible nesting site. However, multiple
winter observations of tricolored blackbirds
at Crespi Pond by citizen scientists are
recorded in the eBird database. Observation
dates range from 1980 to 2020, are associated
with the fall months of September, October,
and November, except for one June record
from 1982, and estimate between one and 94
individuals (eBird, 2021).

Athene cunicularia
Western burrowing owl
-- / CSC / -- 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
Low-quality wintering habitat for burrowing
owl may occur in the adjacent open
landscapes of the municipal golf course and
dunes. An anecdotal observation is recorded
in eBird near Crespi Pond from September
29, 2020. However, no suitable habitat is
present within the survey area.

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.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Low
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Could occur as a fly by.

PGCC 5-6-26
423
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area 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.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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
Low
Species prefers habitat with relatively lowgrowing marsh vegetation and is not typically associated with deeper water and tall
emergent vegetation, such as cattails and
tules.

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.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the 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.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Low
Low-quality habitat occurs within the survey
area. CNDDB reports a 2007 record in
similar habitat at Spanish Bay approximately
2 miles southwest of the survey area and a
1967 record of a roadkill in Pacific Grove.

However, survey area is outside of primary
metapopulation localities of San Francisco
Bay, coastal Marin County, Sierra Nevada
foothills, and the lower Colorado River
(Spautz et al., 2005). Water depth may
exceed the species preferred depth.

PGCC 5-6-26
424
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Riparia riparia
Bank swallow (nesting)
-- / ST / -- Nest colonially in sand banks. Found near water; fields, marshes, streams, and lakes.

Low
CNDDB reports one occurrence
approximately 5.8 miles east of the survey
area in a sand bank. Suitable nesting habitat
is absent from the survey area.

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.

Not Present
No suitable riparian habitat within the survey
area.

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.

Not Present
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Could occur as a fly by.

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
Crespi Pond provides poor aquatic breeding
habitat for CTS due to its infrequent drying,
presence of abundant crayfish and fish, and
distance from other known CTS occurrences,
the nearest of which is 8.6 miles from the
site. This distance exceeds the known
movement capability of CTS (1.3 miles). The
surrounding golf course and dunes also
provide poor upland habitat due to low
concentration of small mammal burrows.

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

Low
Legless lizard occurs at numerous locations
in the quadrangles reviewed and four
CNDDB occurrences are located in the
vicinity of the survey area. However, these
nearby occurrences are associated with
coastal dunes. The aquatic, wetland, and golf
course turf provide low-quality habitat for
legless lizard within the Survey Area.

PGCC 5-6-26
425
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
-- / 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.

Low
Crespi Pond provides marginal habitat for
western pond turtle but is isolated from other
areas of suitable habitat. Most CNDDB
records are associated with the Carmel River,
although one record from 1995 documents
the species in a former reservoir in Pacific
Grove, 1.8 miles southeast of the Survey
Area. Western pond turtle was not observed
at the site by DD&A during surveys
performed in 2014 and 2015 or the surveys
performed during 2024 as part of this study.

Therefore, the potential for occurrence is
low.

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

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present within the
survey area.

Rana boylii
Foothill yellow-legged
frog
-- / CSC / -- 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 stream habitat is present within
the survey area. CNDDB occurrences from
the Monterey Peninsula are greater than 50
years old, are associated with streams, and
are noted as likely extirpated.

PGCC 5-6-26
426
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within 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
The nearest CNDDB occurrences are located
at Seal Rock Creek, approximately 2.4 miles
southwest of the project site. These include a
2002 observation of two adults and two
juveniles (occurrence # 599) at the mouth of
Seal Rock Creek and second 2002
observation (occurrence #600) of two
subadults in a pool associated with a culvert.

The distance of the project site from these
occurrences and any other potential
freshwater aquatic habitat exceeds one mile,
the maximum known dispersal distance of
the species. In addition, nighttime visual
surveys conducted by DD&A in October
2014 and 2015 did not detect any CRLF.

Abundant crayfish and an unidentified
species of fish were documented as present
during this study, significantly reducing the
potential for presence of the species.

Therefore, the potential for CRLF to occur is
low.

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.

Low
The nearest CNDDB occurrence is
approximately 8.8 miles away in the Santa
Lucia range. Surrounding golf course and
dunes provide poor upland habitat and the
presence of abundant crayfish and fish
significantly reduce the potential for presence
of the species. Therefore, the potential for
Coast Range newt is low.

PGCC 5-6-26
427
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
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 survey area.

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 survey area.

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 survey area.

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.

Low
No suitable habitat within the golf course,
wetland, and water habitats of the survey
area. Few, if any small mammal burrows are
present within the survey area.

PGCC 5-6-26
428
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
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.

Low
No suitable habitat within the golf course,
wetland, and water habitats of the survey
area. Few, if any small mammal burrows are
present within the survey area.

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

Unlikely
Although the Survey Area is within the range
of this species, no CNDDB records occur
within the quadrangles reviewed. The nearperennial water typical of Crespi Pond does not meet the ephemeral hydroperiod
requirements of this species.

Danaus plexippus
Monarch butterfly
(Overwintering Site)
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.

Unlikely
Pacific Grove is well known for its Monarch
butterfly overwintering sites. However, the
Survey Area and exposed adjacent golf
course areas do not provide suitable
conditions for overwintering monarch
butterflies.

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.

Not Present
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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the 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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Host plant species absent from survey area.

PGCC 5-6-26
429
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area 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
Not observed within the project site during
January 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
January 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
Not observed within the project site during
January 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
Not observed within the project site during
January 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
January 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.

Unlikely
Project site is not near the two known
occurrences.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the 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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

PGCC 5-6-26
430
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area 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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

Only known from Fort Ord National
Monument.

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.

Unlikely
Known from nearby dune and coastal bluff
habitats, but suitable habitat is absent from
the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the 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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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

PGCC 5-6-26
431
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area 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
Not observed within the project site during
January 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.

Low
Low quality habitat within the survey area.

Project site is outside the typical elevation
range of the species and does not have a
vernal hydrologic regime.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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

Unlikely
Known from nearby dune habitats, but
suitable habitat is absent from the survey
area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the 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.

Unlikely
Known from nearby dune habitats, but
suitable habitat is absent from the survey
area.

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
January 2024 botanical surveys.

PGCC 5-6-26
432
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area 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. Three Monterey
cypress trees occur within the survey area
and others are found immediately adjacent to
the survey area 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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
Known from nearby dune habitats, but
suitable habitat is absent from the 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.

Unlikely
Known from nearby dune habitats, but
suitable habitat is absent from the survey
area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

PGCC 5-6-26
433
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area 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).

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

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

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Low
Poor habitat within the survey area due to
inundation, disturbance, and adjacent golf
course turf.

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

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

PGCC 5-6-26
434
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
Species Status
(USFWS/ CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Occurrence Potential within Survey Area 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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the 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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

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.

Low
Poor habitat within the survey area due to
inundation, disturbance, and adjacent golf
course turf.

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.

Low
Poor habitat within the survey area due to
inundation, disturbance, and adjacent golf
course turf.

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.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat within the survey area.

PGCC 5-6-26
435
PGCC 5-6-26