The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20010101 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) (29) ti Midpeninsula Regional • ' Open Space District Meeting 11-13 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,California Wednesday,May 25, 2011 CLOSED SESSION MEETING OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT BEGINS AT 5:00 P.M.* REGULAR MEETING OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT BEGINS AT 7:00 P.M.* AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING 5:00 ROLL CALL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT— CLOSED SESSION 1. CLOSED SESSION: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION—CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §54957(B)(1). TITLE OF EMPLOYEES: GENERAL MANAGER,GENERAL COUNSEL,AND DISTRICT CONTROLLER 2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS,GOVERNMENT CODE § 54957.6 AGENCY NEGOTIATORS—BOARD APPOINTEE EVALUATION COMMITTEE UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES—GENERAL MANAGER,GENERAL COUNSEL,AND DISTRICT CONTROLLER ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT— PUBLIC SESSION REPORT ON RETURN FROM CLOSED SESSION(IF NECESSARY)(The Board shall publicly state any reportable action taken in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1) ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS—PUBLIC i i ADOPTION OF AGENDA 7:05 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Minutes of the District's Special and Regular Meeting—April 27,2011 2. Approve Revised Claims Report 3. Approve Written Communications—None 7:10 BOARD BUSINESS 4. Strategic Plan Up date—K. Dray son INFORMATIONAL REPORTS—Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff;opportunity to refer public or Board questions to staff for factual information;request staff to report back to the Board on a matter at a future meeting;or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. A. Committee Reports B. Staff Reports C. Director Reports ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed.Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Chair will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes.Alternately,you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. Consent Calendar:All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,if you need assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the District Clerk at(650)691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting,will be available for public inspection at the District's Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle,Los Altos,California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF Pos,rINC OF AGENDA 1,Michelle Radcliffe,District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD),declare that the foregoing amended agenda for the Special and Regular Meeting of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on May 20,2011,at the Administrative Offices of MROSD,330 Distel Circle,Los Altos California,94022. The agenda is also available on the District's web site at http://www,openspace.org. Signed this 201e day of May,at Los Altos,California. District Clerk May 20,2011 i Claims No. 11-09 Meeting 11-13 Date 5/25/11 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 15205 $15,329,79 IHI Environmental Third Party Monitoring For Mt. Umunhum Remediation Project 15206 $8,476.89 Schafer Consulting Consulting Services-Integrated Accounting&Financial Software Selection, Evaluation&Implementation 15207 $8,442.00 Department Of Water Resources Rickey Dam Annual Fees 15208 $8,351.83 ESRI ArcView GIs Software Annual Maintenance Agreement 15209 $7,574.11 Sol's Mobile Service Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 15210 $5,000.00 *1 First American Title Company Acquisition Option Deposit 15211 $2,698.00 Shelterbelt Builders Pest Control Recommendation For Preserves 15212 $2,547.78 Page&Turnbull Architectural&Engineering Services-Folger House Remodel 15213 $1,865.50 Macro Corporation Project Management Services-Implementation Of District's New Radio System 15214 $1,859.22 Metro Mobile Communications Radio Replacement For District Vehicle 15215 $1,765.00 Highway Products Three Truck Storage Boxes 9 Y r 9 15216 $1,595.59 "2 Home Depot Field Supplies/Lumber For Redwood Trail Protective Barriers! Power Tools&Supplies For SAO/Fencing Supplies/Water Heater For Rental Residence/Black Mountain Water System Repairs/Shop Supplies 15217 $1,472.00 Alliant Insurance Services Crime Insurance Premium 15218 $1,396.19 Pape' Machinery Rental Equipment-Dozer For Roadwork At Picchetti 15219 $1,282.82 02 Marketing&Design District Uniform Patches 15220 $1,214.79 Firestone Complete Auto Care Tires 15221 $551.03 Sunnyvale Ford Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 15222 $547.36 Accountemps Accounting Temp 15223 $530.75 Rich Voss Trucking Delivery-Base Rock For Parking Lot Repairs And Skyline Ridge &Russian Ridge Trails 15224 $476.32 '3 Costco Office&Break Room Supplies 15225 $450.00 "4 U.S. Postmaster Postage For Reply Card Insert/Mailing That Will Be Included With The Summer Newsletter 15226 $443A3 Stevens Creek Quarry Base Rock For Parking Lot Repairs And Trails At Skyline Ridge& Monte Bello 15227 $441.09 Tom Karnofel Reimbursement-Travel Expenses For OSHA Lead/Asbestos Screening For Former Employee 15228 $369.67 California Water Service Company Water Service-FFO 15229 $359.80 Great Printing&Copies Printing Services-Copies Of Foothills&Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area 15230 $295.24 CMK Automotive Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 15231 $276.60 Target Specialty Products Landscaping Supplies 15232 $260.69 Forestry Suppliers Rakes 15233 $258,00 '5 County Of San Mateo Application Fee For County Review Of Storm Water Management Plan For The Big Dipper Roads Project 15234 $255.49 Arbill Three Pairs Of Leather Gloves 15235 $207.45 Lowe's Paint Supplies-Administrative Services Managers'Office 15236 $187,67 Green Waste Garbage Service-SFO 15237 $175.00 Cupertino Medical Group Employee Medical Services 15238 $175.00 Overhead Door Company Of Santa Repair Annex Garage Door Clara 15239 $140.00 Vince Fontana Fence Repair-Big Dipper 15240 $118.50 Ace Fire Equipment&Service Oxygen Tank Maintenance For Two Patrol Trucks Company 15241 $110.31 Mission Trail Waste Systems Garbage Service-AO 15242 $105.89 R&B Company Water Meter-SFO Shop 15243 $101.19 Williams, Jennifer Reimbursement-Geocaching Supplies/Fremont Older House Tour Supplies Page 1 of 3 I Claims No. 11-09 Meeting 11-13 Date 5/25/11 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 15244 $99.30 Fitzsimons, Renee Reimbursement-Docent Refreshments/Window Film For Nature Center Door/Recognition Gift Card 15245 $86,50 Roessler,Cindy Reimbursement-Mileage 15246 $81.60 West Payment Center Monthly Subscription For Online Legal Information 15247 $78.00 Pacific Telemanagement Services Pay Phone-Black Mountain 15248 $76.30 *6 Fleet Services Fuel 15249 $75.82 Pape' Material Handling Battery Tray&Parts For Bobcat 15250 $70.00 County Of San Mateo Human Training Course-Word 2003/2007 Resources Department 15251 $54.63 Staples Advantage Break Room Supplies 15252 $51.35 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expenses 15253 $29.01 O'Reilly Auto Parts Auto Parts-Oil Cap/Tire Guage/Headlight Bulb!Battery Terminals 15254 $25,25 Rayne Of San Jose Water Service-Fremont Older 15255 $24.34 United Parcel Service Parcel Shipping 15256 $21.40 Recognition Specialties Name Badges 15257 $11.36 Royal Brass Tractor Fitting 15258 $7.09 Roberts Hardware Hardware For Mailbox Repair 15259 $4,53 Mission Valley Ford Truck Part 15260 R $5,218.34 *7 United States Postmaster Postage For Mailing Summer Newsletter 15261 R $5,065,85 Design Concepts Graphic Design Services-Summer Newsletter&Calendar, Business Cards&Recognition Pin Art&Production 15262 R $4,100.00 *8 Bureau Of Land Management Deposit-Land Acquisition 15263 R $2,322.22 Ecological Concerns Native Vegetation Maintenance&Monitoring-Skyline Ridge Tree Farm 15264 R $672.98 Interstate Traffic Control Products Twenty Two No Parking Signs 15265 R $604.94 Mocean Uniform Expenses 15266 R $530.26 Accountemps Accounting Temp 15267 R $316.26 Petty Cash Office Supplies/Parking,Mileage&Car Washes/Business Related Meals/Microsoft Office 2007 Reference Book 15268 R $275.38 Perez,Mike Reimbursement-Uniform Expenses 15269 R $226.58 United Site Services Sanitation Services-Fremont Older House Tours 15270 R $218.45 Bill's Towing&Recovery Towing Services 15271 R $182.83 McKowan, Paul Reimbursement-Volunteer Supplies 15272 R $172.50 Monster Mechanical HVAC Service-AO 15273 R $147.10 Fed Ex Shipping Charges 15274 R $124.49 Jurgensen, Rudy Reimbursement-Mileage 15275 R $121.81 Neopost Postage Machine Supplies 15276 R $50,00 Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder CEQA Filing Fee-Training Exercise 15277 R $50.00 *9 Bureau Of Land Management Processing Fee-Land Acquisition 15278 R $50.00 San Mateo County Clerk Recorder Notice Of Exemption Filing Fee-Silva Property i I ( Page 2 of 3 j Claims No. 11-09 Meeting 11-13 Date 5/25/11 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description Total $98,954.46 *1 Urgent check issued 5/11/11 *2 Urgent check issued 5/19/11 *3 Urgent check issued 5/17/11 *4 Urgent check issued 5/11/11 *5 Urgent check issued 5/16/11 *6 Urgent check issued 5/19/11 *7 Urgent check issued 5/20/11 *8 Urgent check issued 5/24/11 *9 Urgent check issued 5/24/11 I I i Page 3 of 3 1 Claims No. 11-09 Meeting 11-13 Date 5/25/11 I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 15205 $15,329.79 IHI Environmental Third Party Monitoring For Mt. Umunhum Remediation Project 15206 $8,476.89 Schafer Consulting Consulting Services-Integrated Accounting&Financial Software Selection, Evaluation&Implementation 15207 $8,442.00 Department Of Water Resources Rickey Dam Annual Fees 15208 $8,351.83 ESRI ArcView GIs Software Annual Maintenance Agreement 15209 $7,574.11 Sol's Mobile Service Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 15210 $5,000.00 *1 First American Title Company Acquisition Option Deposit 15211 $2,698.00 Shelterbelt Builders Pest Control Recommendation For Preserves 15212 $2,547.78 Page&Turnbull Architectural&Engineering Services-Folger House Remodel 15213 $1,865.50 Macro Corporation Project Management Services-Implementation Of District's New Radio System 15214 $1,859.22 Metro Mobile Communications Radio Replacement For District Vehicle 15215 $1,765.00 Highway Products Three Truck Storage Boxes 15216 $1,595.59 *2 Home Depot Field Supplies/Lumber For Redwood Trail Protective Barriers/ Power Tools&Supplies For SAO/Fencing Supplies/Water Heater For Rental Residence/Black Mountain Water System Repairs/Shop Supplies 15217 $1,472.00 Alliant Insurance Services Crime Insurance Premium 15218 $1,396.19 Pape' Machinery Rental Equipment-Dozer For Roadwork At Picchetti 15219 $1,282.82 02 Marketing&Design District Uniform Patches 15220 $1,214.79 Firestone Complete Auto Care Tires 15221 $551.03 Sunnyvale Ford Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 15222 $547.36 Accountemps Accounting Temp 15223 $530.75 Rich Voss Trucking Delivery-Base Rock For Parking Lot Repairs And Skyline Ridge &Russian Ridge Trails 15224 $476.32 *3 Costco Office&Break Room Supplies 15225 $450.00 *4 U.S. Postmaster Postage For Reply Card Insert/Mailing That Will Be Included With The Summer Newsletter 15226 $443,43 Stevens Creek Quarry Base Rock For Parking Lot Repairs And Trails At Skyline Ridge& Y � Monte Bello 15227 $441,09 Tom Karnofel Reimbursement-Travel Expenses For OSHA Lead/Asbestos Screening For Former Employee 15228 $369.67 California Water Service Company Water Service-FFO 15229 $359.80 Great Printing&Copies Printing Services-Copies Of Foothills&Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area 15230 $295.24 CMK Automotive Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 15231 $276.60 Target Specialty Products Landscaping Supplies 15232 $260.69 Forestry Suppliers Rakes 15233 $258.00 *5 County Of San Mateo Application Fee For County Review Of Storm Water Management Plan For The Big Dipper Roads Project 15234 $255.49 Arbill Three Pairs Of Leather Gloves 15235 $207.45 Lowe's Paint Supplies-Administrative Services Managers'Office 15236 $187.67 Green Waste Garbage Service-SFO 15237 $175.00 Cupertino Medical Group Employee Em to ee Medical Services 15238 $175.00 Overhead Door Company Of Santa Repair Annex Garage Door Clara 15239 $140,00 Vince Fontana Fence Repair-Big Dipper 15240 $118.50 Ace Fire Equipment&Service Oxygen Tank Maintenance For Two Patrol Trucks Company 15241 $110.31 Mission Trail Waste Systems Garbage Service-AO 15242 $105.89 R&B Company Water Meter-SFO Shop 15243 $101.19 Williams,Jennifer Reimbursement-Geocaching Supplies/Fremont Older House Tour Supplies Page 1 of 2 � ~ w Claims No. 11-09 Meeting 11-13 Date 5/25/11 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 152*4 $99.30 Fitzsimons,Renee Reimbursement'Docent Refreshments/Window Film For Nature Center Door/Recognition Gift Card 152*5 *8O50 noenWe,.Cindy Reimbursement-Mi|auga � | 152*6 $81.80 West Payment Center Monthly Subscription For Online Legal Information | 15247 $78.00 Pacific To|emooagemuntServices poyPhonn-B|aoxMuuntam � 15248 $7&30 ^O Fleet Services Fuel � 15249 $75.82 Pape' Material Vunu|inQ 8omory Troy&Parts For 8nunot � 15250 $70.00 County Of San Mateo Human Training Course'Word 2003/2007 Resources Department 15251 $54.63 Staples Advantage Break Room Supplies � 15252 $51 35 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expenses � 15253 $29.01 O'Reilly Auto Parts Auto Parts-Oil Cap/Tire Guage/Headlight Bulb/Battery Tunninu|o 15254 *2515 Rayne Or San Jose vvute,sen/ion'Fremont Older | 15255 *2434 United Parcel Service Parcel Shipping 15256 $21A0 Recognition Specialties Name Badges 15257 $11.36 Royal Brass Tractor Fitting 15258 $7.09 Roberts Hardware Hardware For Mailbox Repair 15259 *4.53 Mission Valley Ford Truck Part Total $78,584.47 � ~1 Urgent check issued o/11n1 � ^2 Urgent check isuuodanon1 � ^n Urgent check issued anrn1 � ^4 U�o.n check muuodsU n� 1 � � `5 Urgent check issued onsn1 | ^n Urgent check issued 5nen1 � � � � | | � � � Page,mu I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-11-52 Meeting 11-13 May 25, 2011 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Strategic Plan Update STRATEGIC PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the Board accept this report providing an update on the strategic planning process. SUMMARY On April 13, 2011, the Board of Directors (Board) held a Strategic Planning Workshop, during which the Board provided suggested edits to the Identity Statement, Strategy Screen, and Big Questions and directed the Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) to consider those changes. This report 1) presents the results of the Committee's evaluation; and 2)provides an update on the status of the District's strategic planning process. DISCUSSION Follow-u April 13 Board Workshop P.from A P P several Board members suggested minor edits to 1 2011 Strate is Plan Workshop, burin the A r�l 3 gg g pg . the Identity Statement, Strategy Screen, and Big Questions. The Strategic Plan Working Group (SPWG) and the Committee discussed each of the suggested edits. The outcome of that discussion is detailed below. Identity Statement: Proposed edits to the "mission" and "who we serve" sections were determined to be included elsewhere in the Identity Statement, as was the role of agriculture. Based on the suggested edits, minor changes were made to the"Differentiating Strengths" and"Financially Sustainable" sections and are reflected in Attachment A. Strategy Screen: In order to provide more clarity, the third Strategy Screen question was changed to "Consequences of Action/No Action" and two questions were added: one under`Benefits, Impacts, and Tradeoffs" and the other under"Differentiating Strengths." The mark-up of the Strategy Screen is included as Attachment B. R-1 1-52 Page 2 Big Questions: At the Board workshop, it was suggested that the question "What is the District's role in climate change?" be added as a fifth Big Question. After discussion, the Committee recommended that this issue be incorporated into Big Question #2: "How do we allocate resources among programs to achieve desired results?" The change can be viewed in Attachment C. Current Status of Strategic Planning Process Big Questions and Strategy Development: With respect to Big Question #1, feedback from the Board at the April 13, 2011 Workshop indicated consensus that Strategy Option 1: Current Focus has only short-term viability (3-5 years) and Strategy Option 2: Re-Allocate Expenses is not a strategy the Board wants to pursue. At the end of the Workshop, staff and the Committee were directed to flesh out the remaining three strategy options: Expand Funding, Resource Management and Access, and Regional Collaboration. In the process of discussing these three strategy options, staff and the Committee once again returned to the question: What is the long-term vision for the District? Without knowing the answer to that question, that is, without knowing what the target is, it is difficult to develop strategies. During the District's almost 40 years of existence, the focus has been on land acquisition to prevent urban encroachment into the Santa Cruz Mountains. However, with a significant portion of the lands now owned by the District and other conservation agencies such as POST, County Parks, and others, the threat of development is now minimal. At the same time, the District's resource management needs and demand for expanded public access have increased substantially. Staff and the Committee feel that, in order for appropriate strategies to be developed and selected, the Board needs to discuss and align on the District's 40-year vision and goals. 40-Year Vision: When the District was established almost 40 years ago, there were few other organizations focusing exclusively on land preservation on the peninsula; consequently,the District's focus was on land acquisition. Since then, in addition to the District acquiring almost 60,000 acres of land, many other land preservation and acquisition organizations have been established or become more active in the area including Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), Sempervirens Fund, Save the Redwoods League, and others. As a result of the combined efforts of these various organizations, over 100,000 acres of land have been preserved or saved from development within the Santa Cruz Mountains. Looking forward over the next 40 years,the District needs to evaluate its role in land conservation in the region and determine how it can best contribute to those efforts. In evaluating the District's role, the following factors should be considered: 1. Over the last decade, as a result of increasingly more stringent regulatory requirements, limited staff resources, and the increased acreage of District lands, the majority of the District's resource management activities are now regulatory-driven with little time and funding for the pro-active "should do" types of projects. 2. Feedback from partner agencies in the area indicates they view the District as being in the best position to provide long-term resource management and trails maintenance and management. 3. There is an increasing demand from the public for more access to open space lands, both those owned by the District and those owned by other organizations yet the District has provided minimal new public access in the last decade. R-1 1-52 Page 3 4. Other organizations may be better suited to purchase large quantities of land, especially non-profit land trusts who can appeal to a large base of citizens and private groups and foundations for financial contributions. The District's Mission has three major components: land acquisition and preservation, resource management, and public access and education. Due to the threat of development and the need to front- load conservation land purchase costs before property became too expensive, particularly in the early years of the District's existence, significant emphasis has been placed on land acquisition. However, as time has progressed and as the District preserve system has grown to nearly 60,000 acres, the District has not been able to effectively implement all three components of the Mission. Given the significant changes in the regional land conservation participants and their efforts, the District should evaluate whether it should continue to make land acquisition its highest priority or whether, from a regional perspective, increasing the emphasis on resource management and public access, and letting others carry more of the effort required for land acquisition, would better serve the area-wide conservation efforts. In this way, the District would be able to balance resource allocation to each of the three main elements of the District's mission. Consequently, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends that, through the strategic planning process, the Board and staff explore what would be needed to implement the whole mission well. FISCAL IMPACT Acceptance of the Committee's report will have no impact to the District's budget. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE The proposed actions are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental review is required. NEXT STEPS A second Strategic Plan Board Workshop is scheduled for June 10, 2011 and additional workshops will be scheduled as needed to complete the District's Strategic Plan. Attachments: Attachment A: Identity Statement markup Attachment B: Strategy Screen markup Attachment C: Big Questions markup Prepared by: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Strategic Plan Working Group: Craig Beckman, Maint and Resource Supervisor Casey Cleve, GIS Coordinator Bunny Congdon, Sr Accounting Specialist Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Anna Duong, Deputy District Clerk/Office Mgr Leigh Ann Gessner, Communications Specialist Tom Lausten, Supervising Ranger Kirk Lenington, Sr Resource Planner R-I 1-52 Page 4 Rick Parry, Lead Open Space Technician Sandy Sommer, Sr Real Property Planner Managers and Board Appointees: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Rudy Jurgensen, Public Affairs Manager Ana Ruiz, Planning Manager David Sanguinetti, Operations Manager Annetta Spiegel, Acting HR Manager Lynn Tottori, Senior Management Analyst Mike Williams, Real Property Manager Steve Abbors, General Manager Sue Schectman, Legal Counsel Contacts: Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Committee: Nonette Hanko Cecily Harris Curt Riffle ATTACHMENT A ' ( Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 5/17/11 IDENTITY STATEMENT We advance our mission of: To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space (Adapted from the District's land in perpetuity; protect and restore the natural Basic Policy) environment; and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. • Land area that is allowed to remain in or return to its natural, And seek to: wild state.Open space lands may Form continuous systems of permanently preserved include compatible agricultural open s ace by linking with other public parklands uses. S. n other natural lands;a d tro aua • Protects areas of scenic beauty • Protect places for sensitive, rare, threatened, and and rural character. endangered species, enhance habitats, and preserve and connect key land and water corridors for wildlife • Preserves natural habitats necessary to sustain plant and. movement and survival; animal life,especially native and Increase public accessibility to and knowledge of the endangered species. interconnected regional preserve systems and their value, and appropriately balance public use with Offers opportunities to the public for education,recreation,and resource protection. renewal of spirit. By serving: • Enhances public safety by Everyone who lives or works within the District's preventing development of areas boundaries, or visits the District's lands. prone to landslides,earthquake damage, flooding,and wildland Within: fires. The District's legal boundaries on the San Francisco . Establishes boundaries for urban Peninsula from south of Pacifica to Los Gatos, and from the growth,and provides a respite Pacific Ocean to the San Francisco Bay. from urban living. Through: • Improves the environmental 9 p • Regional open space preservation; health of the region and the health • Biodiversity preservation, stewardship, and of its people through the connectivity; protection of air quality,water • Low-intensity public access; quality,and physical exercise. • Community environmental education and . In short,open space is"room to involvement; breathe." • Open space conservation advocacy; • Compatible agricultural uses of open space. And emphasizing our differentiating strengths by: 1. A special purpose district created by the voters to actively conserve Tice enly pebk agency within DiStFiEt beundaries actively Eensenving additional open space using the following essential tools: • Dedicated funding from the voters 1ffdepeffdef%e-that allows the District to exercise consistent, patient leadership to pursue an interconnected regional open space system, accomplished with public and private partners. • Essential,, efficient and economical land stewardship including intensive and focused restoration to critical locations. • Stable property tax funding coupled with skillful, sustainable leveraging of District financial resources. 2. Owning and managing a unique asset — the Preserves and the benefits provided by them for speei---,plants animals,____---,and people. • Low-intensity public access where appropriate and cost effective for an enjoyable wildiand experience. We are sustainedable by: Primarily Property Tax Revenue (1.7 cents per $100 of assessed real property value). Also by: 0 Grants 0 Gifts 0 Interest income 0 Investment income 0 Rental income 0 Partnerships o Volunteer services 0 Excellent credit rating 3/22/2011 2 ATTACHMENT B Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 5/17/2011 STRATEGY SCREEN / DISCUSSION GUIDE Best way to achieve Mission • Are the actions and the expected outcomes consistent with our mission and our identity? • Is it consistent with long-term success? Are we the best-suited organization? • Can others do this better? • Is there a role for partner agencies? • Are we the only one who can or will do this? Consequences of action / no action • Are we required to act by law, policy or other imperative or is action discretionary? • What is the time sensitivity? • If we wait to decide or act, what will be the consequences? i.e. will an opportunity be lost or a resource damaged if we fail to act? • Will our action preserve future options to the extent possible? • Do the long-term impacts outweigh the effort/action required? Capacity and sustainability • Is staff and management capacity adequate to absorb those impacts? • Can we sustain the effort required? • Can it be accommodated within the constraints of our long-term financial model? • What is the most effective way to leverage our resources? Benefits, impacts and tradeoffs • Do the benefits outweigh the impacts (to public, organization)? • What are the strengths/weaknesses? • Do we need to consider tradeoffs; are we willing to make tradeoffs? • Will this provide the District with the opportunity to develop new skills and capacities? Differentiating strengths • Does it build on and reinforce our differentiating strengths? • Does it make best use of and conserve our tools? (Independence, vision, economical land stewardship, stable tax funding, creative leveraging of funds) • Does the action increase public knowledge and awareness of the District (branding)? • Does it support or expand on our large and varied environmental education pro rag rns? I ATTACHMENT C 511712011 Big Question #2: Relative Emphasis Between Programs Aligning Resources with Expectations Big Questions How do we allocate resources among programs to achieve desired results? Background / Problem Statement Traditionally, the District has focused on land preservation. However, the Board has expressed a desire to increase resource management, staff facilities, and public access as well as explore the District's response to climate change. The District does not have adequate funding or staff time (collectively: resources) to emphasize all of these programs at once. Desired Results 0 To successfully implement the District's mission and/or critical initiatives through the prioritized, coordinated deployment of financial and labor resources. 9 To ensure that adequate resources are being deployed to accomplish objectives at both the planning and review stages. 0 To allow the Public, Board, Management to effectively evaluate District annual output, capacity and priorities. Examples of Current Strategies 0 The District's highest priority is acquiring land to complete the greenbelt and to protect natural resources on open space lands. Public access will be provided gradually to ensure that the higher priorities of acquisition and resource protection are maintained (Basic Policy 2.b) 0 Because of the District's commitment to maximum open space preservation efforts, expenditure guidelines will be established for the amount of funding available for recreational improvement projects and restoration activities. (Basic Policy 2.b) In 2011, the guidelines are as follows: 51% of tax revenue= Operating Expenditures 10.5% of tax revenue = Capital Expenditures Question: Are these strategies sufficient to meet current and future challenges? ' IMidpeninsula Regional Open Space District r To: Board of Directors From: Stephen E. Abbors Date: May 20, 2011. Re: FYIs { Fegu§eat n e C ",.iiiI ;7lfi i I a ;t'£; otl < Op,''1 7 e OI Pi iC:? May 18, 2011 Mike Sherback Mountain View RE: Comments regarding radar tower at Mt. Umunhum Dear Mr. Sherback, Thank you for your interest in the Mt. Umunhum Environmental Restoration and Public Access Project, and more specifically, your interest on the future decision for the radar tower. Please find below the project information that you have requested at both the April 27 and May 11, 2011 Board meetings and in your email dated May 2, 2010. 1. As you have indicated in your comments, our project website does not currently include the option of reducing the no-public entry/closed zone atop the summit of Mt. Umunhum to specifically fence out the radar tower. This option has been more recently discussed amongst staff since the December 9, 2010 public meeting when the website materials were first presented to the public. A fourth option of fencing out the radar tower and leaving it status quo until additional funds are secured for subsequent stabilization work is expected to be presented to our Board of Directors in the summer. During the upcoming summer and fall, District staff plans to accomplish two critical milestones for the project. First, an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)that evaluates the potential environmental issues of all options is planned to be released in July for public and Board review. The options to retain and seal, demolish, reconfigure the building into a publicly-accessible interpretive feature, and fence off the tower, will all be discussed in this document. Following a 45-day comment period for the EIR, the District will hold a public meeting to receive comments and ask for Board certification of the EIR. A public notice of the EIR release date will be sent to interested parties, including you, via email/mail. We also encourage you to check the project website for this and other future project information. Following certification of the EIR, staff will finalize the site plan for Mt. Umunhum and present the final recommendations to the Board at a public meeting in the fall or winter. The final site plan will include a recommendation on what to do with the radar tower. The public will have an opportunity at this time to comment on the recommendations and the Board will consider whether to approve, deny, or request changes to the site plan based on the information presented and comments received. Your name and email address has been added to our interested parties list to ensure that you receive future notifications of these meetings. 2. As you have also indicated in your comments, most public members at workshops and meetings have expressed an interest in retaining versus demolishing the radar tower. District staff surveyed the attending public at our September 30 and November 18, 2010 public workshops, and �� ,'� Lam,._ o C< | approximately 75%of those polled favored keeping the radar tower. However, the District had yet to complete a cost evaluation for keeping the radar tower, and the assumption at that time was � that it would likely cost about the same to demolish the tower astu retain and seal it up. It is unclear whether the public would continue to support retaining the radar tower given more � recent and more accurate cost estimates (see Item 3 below for information on the updated cost estimates). 1 The District obtained more accurate cost estimates for retaining the radar tower based on the findings of structural evaluation completed this calendar year that determined the extent of � work needed to stabilize, seal, and retain the radar tower to allow public access to its base. A � demolition cost estimate was also obtained from a qualified and experienced consultant who specializes in demolition cost estimating. These more detailed estimates indicate that it would � cost twice as much to keep and seal the tower versus demolish the tower. � � The 2OIl construction cost estimate to retain and seal the radar tower is $66OK This cost � estimate does not include design and engineering fees to prepare the contract documents, permitting and regulatory costs, nor escalation for future years. Including these fees, the total 2O1l cost to keep the radar tower is expected tobe approximately $7S0K. The cost to demolish the radar tower ranges between $280K and $36OK. The range incost reflects the difference between the potential to crush and re-use all the concrete on site (least expensive option)to the potential requirement to off-haul all the concrete (most expensive). � Per your request, attached please find cost estimates prepared by our professional cost � estimating consultants to retain and demolish the radar tower. � The District appreciates your comments on the radar tower and is happy to receive your strong support of District functions and management. VVe hope that the information provided in this letter helps toclarify your questions about the radar tower located Mt. Umunhum. Please feel free Lo send any further comments n/questions to or contact our project manager, K4e/edithK4anning. at 650.691l200. We look forward to seeing you at our next public meeting that is expected to take place this fall. Warm regards, Ana Ruiz Planning Manager AK4R:mmm cc K4ROSD Board ofDirectors Stephen E. Abbocs, General Manager GENERAL MANAGER Stephen E.Abbors Regional OpenSpace Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District I BOARD OFDIRECTORS Pete Siemens Yoriko Kishimoto May 17, 2011 led Cyr Curt Riffle Nonette Hanko Marina Rush, Planner III Larry Hassett County of Santa Clara Planning Office ceaiy Harris 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 7`h Floor San Jose,CA 95110 RE: Notice of Preparation of an EIR Comprehensive Reclamation Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for Permanente Quarry(State Mine ID#91-43-004) On behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(District), I would like to provide the following comments on the scoping of the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Lehigh Permanente Quarry Comprehensive Reclamation Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit(State Mine ID#91-43-004). The District has previously commented on prior notices of preparation for Permanente Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendments dated June 20, 2007,May 20, 2010,and February 3, 2011.These comments remain valid due in part to the fact that the most current Comprehensive Reclamation Plan Amendment encompasses the same geographic areas. Prior written comments are therefore included as attachments to this comment letter. The District is deeply troubled that the intent of the 2007 Comprehensive Reclamation Plan Amendment has expanded from an attempt to bring into compliance a grossly out-of-compliance quarry operation,to an Amendment that includes a new 250-acre quarry pit with a new 20-30 year life span. Since the 2007 Amendment,the East Materials Storage Area,referenced as"the main overburden storage site for the mining operation"was activated. The waste pile continues to grow in size even without having completed an adequate visual impact or human health analysis to understand the magnitude of the environmental and cumulative impacts or the mitigation measures that can be put in place to address these issues. In fact,an environmentally superior alternative exists, as is discussed at the end of this letter. The District urges the County to consider this permit review as an opportunity to relocate the waste material into the existing North Quarry rather than increase the existing waste storage area to avoid compounding the visual impacts and scenic easement issues associated with this project. The following environmental concerns should be addressed in the proposed EIR: Visual Impacts The East Materials Storage Area is proposed to transition into the Central Materials Storage Area and result in a new terraced, unnatural ridge composed of dumped quarry waste that would ultimately lie at a considerable height above the natural existing ground surface. If permitted,this proposed new landform would be grossly out of compliance with Santa Clara County's scenic hillside protection policies.The District requests that the visual impact analysis in the proposed EIR include views from Cristo Rey Drive, at i the entrance to Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve, and from the PG&E Trail,which lies adjacent to the proposed storage areas. Additionally,the analysis should include vantage points from the nearby scenic Monte Bello Road. Dust Impacts Dust impacts to sensitive resources and the recreating public at the adjacent County Park and Open Space Preserve must be analyzed in the proposed EIR.=Given the past decades of ongoing quarry operations at this location,cumulative long-term impacts due to dust are of great concern. As such,the District strongly recommends including a continuous air quality monitoring and reporting program as mitigation and as a condition of approval for any future quarry expansion or permit revision. This monitoring and reporting 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022 1 N 6so.69i.1200 I F 6So.691.048S I www openspace.org i program should continue through the life of the operation and include monitoring stations within 100 feet of the adjacent PG&E Trail,which passes near the proposed and current materials storage areas.Monitoring parameters should include particulate matter and the suite of potentially toxic substances known to occur in the quarry waste. Noise Impacts Noise impacts associated with the proposed and ongoing waste materials storage areas should also be evaluated at the Quarry/Open Space boundary to assess compliance with County noise regulations. To note, according to the Santa Clara County General Plan, the maximum level of noise a new land use(in this case, it is an expanded land use)may impose on neighboring parks, open space reserves, and wildlife refuges, shall be the upper limit of the"Satisfactory Noise Level"(currently at 55 decibels). Cumulative Impacts The District is concerned that the currently full West Materials Storage Area has the potential to be re-mined for construction aggregate.This same concern exists for the new proposed storage areas. This concern,and real possibility, highlights the need to evaluate the extended length of use of these sites to then identify, analyze, and mitigate potential cumulative long-term impacts. For example,the cumulative visual impacts associated with the existing and proposed material storage areas need to be thoroughly evaluated against current County hillside protection policies,the existing scenic ridge easement language, and County General Plan goals for park and open space.This analysis should include a historic visual analysis since the visual impact has dramatically increased over time. The cumulative water resources impacts need to evaluate potential impacts to Permanente Creek given that Permanente Creek has been severely impacted by past quarry practices. It is reasonable to assume that an increase in quarry operations consisting of a new 250 acre South Quarry pit within the relatively pristine half of the watershed will result in a substantial cumulative impact. Alternatives Analysis Lastly,the EIR should identify and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives. As previously stated in prior comment letters, feasible alternatives exist for the waste pile that would avoid creating an artificial, ridge-like mound adjacent to public recreation land and within full view of surrounding communities and the valley floor. An alternative that suspends fill placement in the East Materials Storage Area, eliminates the Central Materials Storage Area, and instead immediately begins backfilling the existing North Quarry Pit for reclamation should be evaluated as a potentially superior environmental alternative.This alternative may serve to balance long-standing quarry deficiencies,halt the unprecedented acceleration of visual impacts,and provide the quarry with future raw materials. The no project alternative, and alternatives that allow quarry expansion only on vested property, should also be evaluated as feasible alternatives. The County's review of the proposed use permit amendment presents an opportunity for the County to reevaluate the current and proposed quarry practices and to identify any changes that would allow the County to more closely and effectively manage quarry operations.The District urges the County to consider this permit review as an opportunity to relocate the waste material into the existing North Quarry rather than increase the existing waste storage area to avoid compounding the visual impacts and scenic easement issues. The District also asks that any mitigation measure identified through the environmental process also be added as a condition of approval of the use permit. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for the scoping of the subject EIR. Please feel free to contact me by email at mbaldzikowski(&openspace.org or by phone at 650 691-1200 if you have any questions regarding this or any prior comment letters. Sincerely, Matt Baidzikoski, Resource Planner II1 cc: District Board of Directors✓ Stephen E Abbors,District General Manager 2 Regional 0 penSpace I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District February 3, 2011 County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors County Government Center 70 West Hedding St. I Oth Floor, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 Re: Public Hearing Regarding Permanente Quarry/ Lehigh Southwest Cement Company Legal Non-Conforming Use Determination it Members of the Board: The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) manages over 59,000 acres of Open Space Preserves (OSP) within Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz Counties, including the Monte Bello and Rancho San Antonio OSPs which share common parcel boundaries with Lehigh's Permanente Quarry owned properties. The District supports and applauds the Board of Supervisors (Board) decision to deliberate the issue of vested rights on the Quarry properties. From the District's perspective, this review is long overdue given the 2010 sunset of the 1984 Reclamation Plan. The District remains extremely concerned with the numerous Reclamation Plan Amendments and ongoing operations of Lehigh Southwest Cement Company's Permanente Quarry (Permanente Quarry). We have previously submitted comments related to the Reclamation Plan Amendments proposed for the Permanente Quarry dated June 20, 2007 and May 21, 2010. Copies of these letters are attached for your convenience. The remainder of this letter summarizes our concerns related to the Permanente Quarry Legal Non-conforming Use Analysis completed by the County, as well as documents prepared by Diepenbrock- Harrison on behalf of the Permanente Quarry. Proposed East Materials Storage Area We concur with the County Analysis that the proposed East Materials Storage Area (EMSA) is not a vested portion of the Permanente Quarry. Documents provided by the Quarry and County clearly show that the proposed EMSA parcel was a part of the manufacturing or 'Plant" operations that began in 1939 when former owner Kaiser applied for a use permit for the adjacent cement plant. The subsequent wartime construction of the magnesium plant, and conversion to an aluminum plant confirm the use as manufacturing or "plant" facilities that are not quarry related. Therefore the EMSA is not a vested portion of the quarry operations. Viewshed impacts have always been prominent issues related to the Permanente Quarry. The 1979 dedication of the Permanenfe Ridge scenic easement to the County by Kaiser, 1985 Reclamation Plan visual impacts discussion, and the County General Plan designation of Hillside Resource Conservation Areas are examples of the importance of this issue. The EMSA proposal is particularly troubling with regard to visual resources and is inconsistent with viewshed protection values that have long been recognized. Santa Clara County Parks, together with the District,jointly manage Rancho San Antonio Park/OSP. We continue to field complaints on a regular basis from park users and District staff from our onsite Field Office related to ongoing visual impacts and dust impacts from quarry use of the EMSA. The massive and growing quarry failings piles are clearly visible to a large portion of public who visit Rancho San Antonio Park/OSP. A survey, recently completed by the District, shows that Rancho San Antonio Park/OSP receives more than 500,000 visits by the public each year. The Permanente Quarry does not have a vested right for quarry operations in the proposed EMSA location. The existing placement of quarry overburden has already been identified by the County as a violation and there are significant visual impacts ongoing as noted above. The District requests that the County enforce its Notice of Violation and prohibit any additional placement of material at this location and that the County require Lehigh Southwest Cement Company to implement all measures necessary to completely mitigate the visual impacts of the subject quarry overburden. Original Quarry Parcel Regarding the vesting of quarry operations, the 1971 analysis completed by County Counsel at the time noted that quarry operations could expand throughout the entire original parcel. The current analysis states that it is unclear which "original parcel" County Counsel was referring to. Parcel 351-09-013 is a very uniquely shaped parcel that appears to be shaped like a quarry pit. It is quite possible that this is the "original parcel" referenced. The July 14, 1977 Mineral Property and/or Mill and Processing Plant Report prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology appears to map the Kaiser Permanente Quarry within the above mentioned parcel. Regardless of how this original quarry parcel issue is resolved by the County, the expansion of quarry operations to new areas should not be allowed. 2 New Proposed South Quarry In addition to correcting past and present violations, Permanente Quarry has added a new (South) quarry pit to their Reclamation Plan Amendment proposal. This addition is extremely troubling in light of Permanente Quarry's representatives attempt to make the case that they have vested rights on the former Morris parcel proposed as a portion of the new South Pit (Morris 351-11- 001). The arguments made by Permanente Quarry representatives for vested rights on this parcel do not stand up to an analysis of the facts. The quarry haul road identified in the far northeast corner of the Morris parcel appears to be Permanente Road, dedicated to the public in 1893, predating any quarry operations. It is entirely inappropriate to identify it as a quarry haul road to justify a vested rights determination. The road is also separated from the rest of the parcel by Permanente Creek and steep topography. Lehigh has not demonstrated unequivocal evidence of prior intent to mine this property. Conclusion While it is troubling that the County did not recognize that the Permanente Quarry had disturbed an area nearly three times the size allowed in the 1985 Reclamation Plan, all parties knew that the 1985 Reclamation Plan would sunset in 2010. We are now past that time and the existing quarry pit appears to be completely mined and the storage areas full. The County has required Permanente Quarry to submit Reclamation Plan Amendments to address existing violations, but the fact is that the Quarry needed a Reclamation Plan Amendment anyway to continue to operate. We are concerned that the County not be pressured by Lehigh to make hasty decisions or further compound the substantial existing deficiencies. We ask that dumping in the EMSA be suspended immediately, and that the County take the steps needed to regain control of its quarry oversight responsibilities. Sincerely, Stephen E. Abbors General Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District cc: MROSD Board of Directors Paul Fong, California State Assemblymember Marina Rush, County Planning Brian Schmidt, Committee For Green Foothills GENERAL MANAGER Stephen E.Abbors Regional openSpaee I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ( BOARD OF DIRECTORS Pete Siemens Mary Oavey Jed Cyr Curt Riflie Vcne t to Ha nko Larry Hassell Cechy Harris May 21,2010 County of Santa Clara Planning Office Attn:Marina Rush County Government Center 70 West Hedding St.,7111 floor,East Wing San Jose,CA 95110 RE: Lehigh Hanson Permanente Quarry 2010 Reclamation Plan Amendment for the East Materials Storage Area,File#2250-13-66-09EIR Ms.Rush, On behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD),I would like to provide the following comments on the scoping for the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)that will assess the Lehigh Hanson Permanente Quarry 2010 Reclamation Plan Amendment proposed for the East Materials Storage Area. Prior Comments and Review IVIROSD staff commented on a previous Reclamation Plan Amendment proposed for the Permanente J Quarry in a letter dated June 20,2007. The original Reclamation Plan was approved in 1985. The 2007 Reclamation Plan Amendment included the proposed East Materials Storage Area(EMSA). It is our understanding that the County is now proposing to divide the Reclamation Plan Amendment area into a smaller area and evaluate the environmental impacts of this smaller area separately to address the quarry's active placement of waste material outside of the permitted area. The County issued a violation notice in 2008 and required that the quarry owner apply for a Reclamation Plan Amendment to rectify the violation. Importance of Anticipating Future Issues The EMSA was previously analyzed under a prior EIR process that was scoped in 2007,appropriately within the context of the entire quarry operation. MROSD understands that there are substantial new issues that need to be addressed and will take some time to evaluate,and that the 2007 Reclamation Plan Amendment had a sunset date of March 2010. Unfortunately,these issues were not previously anticipated years ago by the parties involved. The current EIR intends to address these unanticipated issues and expedite a resolution of the violation. In light of the current need to reevaluate the quarry's operations to address the violation,we urge the County to take an aggressive approach to consider and assess all potential issues that may emerge as a result of ongoing quarry activities and the proposed Reclamation Plan Amendment to ensure that these are reviewed in a timely manner to preempt a future violation. 330 Oistel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022 ( a 650.691,noo 1 r 6S0 691,0485 I www.openspace oro SigrtiJicant�hh�erse I'rsuul l�nlutc•ts i The quarry appears to have a waste material disposal problem. The West Nlaterials Storage Area (WVISA.) appears to be bill. In fact based on the 1985 Reclamation Plan Staff Report and Environmental Assessment, the WNISA appears to also be in violation. Specifically, Condition of Approval.rS states that the maximum height of deposition in Area"A"(\\VISA)shall not exceed the top of the rrdacline bordering to the north. The upper limit of the WNISr\is clearly visible from the valley floor when viewed from the north and therefore, does not meet the requirement of this condition. This condition was deemed necessary to mitigate a significant potential adverse visual impact that was a prominent issue in the 1985 Reclamation Plan and Countv environmental review. Tine proposed EMSA would dramatically expand the area of disturbance visible from surrounding cornnlunities and Public Open Space. It appears that the top elevation of the EMSA proposed in the 2010 Reclamation Plan i'vuendment is substantially highcr in elevation than the ridgeline to the north(known as Kaiser or Permanente Ridge). This would create a new,prominent, unnaturally benched and stepped ridgcline behind the existing"protected"scenic ridgelinc when viewed from Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, County Park. and surroundin.;communities. This would be a significant visual impact that could be avoided if the waste material was instead disposed of within a portion of the quarry pit or other suitable location. The County General Plan Scenic Resources policy includes the strategy to minimize development impacts on siggnifieant scenic resources, including prominent areas such as ridgelines. The Kaiser/ Permanente Ridge is unquestionably of scenic sigaii flea nce. Additionally,all ofthe ridge areas surrounding the proposed E%MSA have the General Plan designation of Hillside Resource Conservation Area. While the ENISA itself appears outside of the designated Hillside Resource Conservation Area, building an artificial new ridgeline in the middle of and at a higher elevation than the protected ridgelines, would fail to minimize development impacts on these significant scenic resources. The scenic importance of the Kaiser/Pennanente Ridge has long been recogruzed by the nearby conununities,County, and the Quarry, resulting in the dedication of a permanent scenic easement I_,ranted by then owner Kaiser Cement Company to the County years before the 1985 Reclamation Plan. All parties clearly recognized the visual significance of the ridgeline. The proposed E%ISA as an unnatural, massive till site that competes with the ridgeline is counter to the scenic protection benefit that was widely recognized years ago. The benefit of the C'ounty's scenic easement will either be lost or impaired unless the scenic value of the Kaiser'Permanent Ridge is protected. Additional Haste•Dis7)osol Issues and Potential Sohrtion.N It appears that both material storage areas may be in violation.The 2007 Reclamation Plan Amendment was previously required to address existing quarry disturbance areas of approximately 900 acres, exceedinti the 330 acre area covered by the 1985 approved Reclamation Plan. It may not be appropriate to separate S9 acres to allow additional waste disposal given these conditions. It also appears that the quarry waste disposal problem is somewhat self-inflicted. A possible solution to this dilemma is to dispose of waste material within the existing quarry pit. A thorough evaluation ofthc existing quarry pit area and depth should be undertaken to determine if opportunities exist within the pit for waste material disposal. The remaining areas to be quarried that would generate the waste material proposed for placement within the E\ISA should also be identified and quantified. Waste material may be advantageous to buttress landslide areas or stabilize over-steepened quarry benches. A number of landslides have already encroached into the dedicated scenic ridge easement over the past decade unabated.and the 1987"main landslide"has yet to be addressed. The material proposed for placement in the EA1SA could be utilized to stabilize these landslides, and the 2007 Annendnnent includes this � possibility. 'This again illustrates the treed for a coniprelnensive evaluation of the quarry operations to anticipate potential tuture issues and remedies. Lade of Reclamation The visible quarry area continues to grow. The Surtace Nfining and Reclamation Act(SMARA)requires that reclamation occur concurrently with quarry disturbance activity,yet very little final reclamation has occurred over the substantial period of mining. Waste disposal within the quarry pit together with concurrent reclamation would actually meet the reclamation requirements of SNUVIZA. lV ame Disl)osal Tinteline 'File timeline for waste disposal within the EMSA is also of concern. At the recent April 28"'public hearing it was stated that existing quarry sales are 50%of normal. This has the potential to double the projected 5-year timefranne, which already seemed overly optimistic. It is also unclear ifthe waste material could be re-mined for construction aggregate as is the case ror the material placed in the WMSA. This a2ain could dramatically lengthen the timeline of operation and disturbance. Deterntination of*Ire ed Rights Lastly. Nve remain concerted with the issue of vested rights at the Permanente Quart'. The EIR proposes only to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the reclamation of the quart', based on the conclusion that the environmental baseline for the project is the post-mining site condition that includes onggoing mining and processing operations(vested quarry operation). The significant new acrea7e that has been disturbed by quarry activities,including the EMSA, is of conceri. Our concern is whether this expansion really is vested,and if not, that the potential environmental impacts associated with the quarry expansion necessitate a thorough analysis. We urge the County to complete a determination or what is actually vested at the Pennanente Quart'. This determination is necessary for any new proposal related to quarry operations at the site,and should include references, maps,deeds,and other exhibits that support the conclusion. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the EMSA proposal for the Lehigh Hanson Permanente Quarry. If you have any questions regarding this letter,please contact Nlatt Baldzikowski, Resource Planner 1I, at (650)691-1200. Sincerely, t� Ana Ruiz, AICP Planning Managcr I idpeninsula Regional Open Space District cc: Stephen E. Abbors, 'NIROSD General Manager Ulatt Baldzikowski, NIROSD Resource Planner II Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ,June 20,2007 County of'Santa Clara Plaruaing Office Attn: Mark J. Con.nolly County Government Center 70 West Hedding St., 7"' floor, East Wing San,Jose, CA 95110 RE: Hanson Permanente Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment EIR Mr, Connolly, On behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's(District),I'd like to provide the following comments on the scoping of the Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the Hanson Permanente Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment(Hanson Quarry). The EIR proposes only to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the reclamation of the Hanson Quarry, based on the conclusion that the environmental baseline for the project is the post-mining site condition that includes ongoing mining and processing operations (vested quarry operation). The significant new acreage that has been disturbed by quarry activities, and is the subject of the proposed EIR is of concern. Our concern is whether this expansion really is vested, and if not, that the potential environmental impacts associated with the quarry expansion have never been analyzed. Please provide a discussion within the EIR on how the determination regarding the vested operation was made and include references to maps,deeds,or other exhibits that support this conclusion. Visual resources are an obvious concern to the surrounding Monte Bello and Ranch San Antonio Open Space Preserves operated by the District.The visual appearance of the reclaimed quarry landforna, and the reclamation revegetation are of particular interest. The reclaimed landforin should blend with the surrounding un-mined landforni as much as possible. The District remains concerned with the relatively recent appearance of a portion of the west materials storage area that is visible above Permanente Ridge when viewed from the north. An evaluation and discussion of this storage area should be included in the EIR. The short-term erosion control species and long-tern reclamation species should be compatible with the surrounding landscape, and should utilize locally collected and propagated native species wherever possible.The control of invasive species is also a significant concern, and should be included in the EIR and Financial Assurance. Geology and slope stability issues associated with the ongoing operations at the Hanson Permanente Quarry remain a serious concern to the District,particularly the slopes and landslide i ' Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT in the northeast corner of the quarry pit. These have been identified along with a landslide on the northern wall of the quarry as"caused in part if not in whole,by the mining operation"in the Executive Officer's Report for July 1.3, 2006 meeting of the State Mining and Geology Board. The landslide in the northeast corner of the quarry pit has the potential to continue to fail, and impact the significant scenic easement along Permanente Ridge A failure at this location could daylight through the top existing ridge and into the scenic easement. This area was the subject of a Request for Emergency Grading Authorization(42002-4) from the County of Santa Clara,and to our,knowledge this work was never completed,The District is unclear on how and when remedial grading will occur to alleviate the slope stability and scenic easement concerns. This area was the subject of a land exchange between the District and Hanson, for the purpose of implementing remedial grading to stabilize the slopes.The property recently transferred to Hanson doesn't appear,to qualify as a"vested"portion of the quarry.Therefore the remedial grading to rectify the slope instability caused at least in part by the quarry operation appears to require either-a grading permit or a mining amendment. We are particularly concerned that the remedial grading for slope stability and scenic concerns be completed as soon as possible, and not be subject to delays associated with a potentially long EIR process. This issue may determine the condition of the post-mining site at this location, and therefore identify what the reclamation plan should address. Drainage and quarry waste materials from the West Materials Storage Area have impacted District road infrastructure down slope to the north in the past.Future drainage from the active and reclaimed materials storage area should be designed to avoid fixture impacts. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the scope of the EM for the Hanson Permanente Quarry, and request that the District be kept informed about the status of the EIR process, and that a copy of the DEIR is sent to the District for review upon completion. Sincerely, Matt Baldzikowski Resource Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos CA 94022-1404 Phone(650) 625-65.37, Fax (650) 691-0485 2 ;nn | GENERAL MANAGER mm Stephen ^u xox/"", OOeMSpaCe | m|dpenmsu|a Regional Open Space District BOARD mDIRECTORS Pete Siemens vunm/Kish/mmo Jed Cyr May 19, 2011 Curt Riffle wone/,exanm, Larryoa,mu Mr.Scott D.Andarsnn os.ly Hams Mr. Bryce Barte|mno Department of the Navy Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office West 1455 Frazee Road,Suite 9DO San Diego,CA921O8-431O Dear Mr.Anderson and Mr. Barte|rna: RE: Draft Remedial Design and Remedial Action Work Plan, Installation Restoration Site 25, Moffett Field,Santa Clara County, California Through this letter, K4idpeninsu|a Regional Open Space District(District) is providing written comments � to the draft Remedial Design and Remedial Action Work Plan/RD/RAVVP}for|nstaUationRestoration Site � ` -' ' 25 (Site 25). As you are aware,the District owns the Stevens Creek Nature Shoreline Study Area, which forms a portion of Site 25,and is therefore a subject of the RD/RAWP.Our comments below are organized by chapter, page and section: 1. Chapter 4.5, page 18,Permits and Notifications—Please include the need to obtain a Permit to Enter from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to complete remediation activities on District land. Also, please provide sufficient prior notice of the Bay Trail closure, at least three � weeks in advance of the closure,and provide this information to the US Fish and Wildlife Service � � (USFWS),Association of Bay Area Governments, and District, all of whom manage or monitor � visitor activities along the affected trail corridor. Lastly, please also post notice of the trail � � closure onsite, also at least three weeks in advance, to alert routine and frequent trail users. � J. Chapter 3, Page 15, Operations and Maintenance Requirements—Please provide information on the extent of the ecological monitoring, including how often vegetation monitoring will occur. Plant status, health, and growth should be monitored at least every three months and � observations should be documented in writing and via photographs. Please make sure to provide ecological monitoring status reports to the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), NASA Ames, and the District. Long term ecological monitoring should evaluate general wetland health for a minimal period of5years. Copies oflong-term monitoring reports should also be provided to USEPA, Water Board, NASA Ames, and the District. 3. Chapter 4, Page 16,Preconstruction Biological Surveys—Please make available the biological avoidance procedures that USFWS will provide.Also, please refer to the attached list of plant and wildlife sightings for Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area to identify any other sensitive species that should be taken into consideration. This list was derived from the Natural Resources Database that is available online. � 33oD/sre|[.,cleLoSu/ms.[A94022 i �6506n1o00 ! ^osoanzn^o� 1 N,,Vmopenspaceo'0 / 4. Chapter4.4, Page 18,Preconstruction Photo Survey—Mease also coordinate with the District to conduct photo surveys on District lands. 5. Chapter 5.7, Pages 2J-23,Biological Avoidonceond&VininizotimnMeosures—P|easeconOrm whether the Navy will replace any active burrowing owl burrows that are removed as a result of � the rennediationwork. |f burrows will not be replaced, please explain how the Navy will avoid � � impacts to burrowing owls and the number ufexisting burrows that are currently active. G. Chapter 6.4, Page 25, Excavation of Contaminated Sediment—Please clarify whether excavation � will occur at 6 inch intervals up to a depth of 2 feet or up to a depth of 1 foot to arrive at � chemical concentration levels that are below thresholds before excavation work is halted and � the Navy ioconsulted. This chapter states uptu1 foot, elsewhere|t references 2 feet, and the Appendix references up to 18 inches. � We thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the RD/RAVVP and look forward to the mn- � the-ground rennediabmn work that is scheduled for this calendar year. Please feel free to contact me � with any questions regarding the comments in this letter via email at or via phone � at65O691-1lOU. Si ly, � � Planning Manager cc Stephen E.4bbors,General Manager and District Board ofDirectors EhcMruz 33ODiste|Circle US Fish and Wildlife Service Los Altos,[A94O4O Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Ms. Sarah K|oss 9500Thornton Avenue U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Newark,[o 94560 Region |X 75 Hawthorne Street,SFD-73 Ryan O|ah and San Francisco, CA941OS Florence Gandipee US Fish and Wildlife Service Ms. Elizabeth Wells, P.E. 28OD Cottage Way, Room VV'2605 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Sacramento, C49SO25 San Francisco Bay Region 1515 Clay Street,Suite 1400 Laura Thompson Oakland, [A94612 Association of Bay Area Governments San Francisco Bay Trail Allen C.L.Tsao and 101 Eight Street Tarni Nakaharm Oakland, [A946O7 California Department of Fish and Game Office of Spill and Prevention Response 17OOK Street,Suite 3SO � Sacramento, CA9S811 � ! aaoD.s»e|Circe Los mms,cxe4002 6su6n!1200 65069104os ! wvv=npen,paceurg � � . Natural Diversity Database list of species observed at Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area May 2011 Species Category Family Scientific Name Scientific Name Most Common Name Birds Accipitridae Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Birds Accipitridae Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk Birds Accipitridae Aquila chr saetos Golden Eagle Birds Accipitridae Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Birds Accipitridae Buteo lagopus Rough-legged Hawk Birds Accipitridae Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk Birds Accipitridae Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Birds Accipitridae Elanus leucurus White-tailed Kite Birds Aegithalidae Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit Birds Alaudidae Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark Birds Alcedinidae Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher Birds Anatidae Anas acuta Northern Pintail Birds Anatidae Anas americana American Wigeon Birds Anatidae Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler Birds Anatidae Anas crecca Green-winged Teal Birds Anatidae Anas crecca crecca Green-winged Teal- Eurasian race Birds Anatidae Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon Teal Birds Anatidae Anas discors Blue-winged Teal Birds Anatidae Anas penelope Eurasian Wigeon Birds Anatidae Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Birds Anatidae Anas strepera Gadwall Birds Anatidae Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup Birds Anatidae Aythya americana Redhead Birds Anatidae Aythya marila Greater Scaup Birds Anatidae Aythya valisineria Canvasback Birds Anatidae Branta canadensis Canada Goose Birds Anatidae Bucephala albeola Bufflehead Birds Anatidae Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye Birds Anatidae Chen caerulescens Snow Goose Birds Anatidae Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser Birds Anatidae Melanitta perspicillata Surf Scoter Birds Anatidae Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser Birds Anatidae Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck Birds Apodidae Aeronautes saxatalis White-throated Swift Birds Apodidae Chaetura vauxi Vaux's Swift Birds Ardeidae Ardea alba Great Egret Birds Ardeidae Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Birds Ardeidae Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern Birds Ardeidae Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Birds Ardeidae Butorides virescens Green Heron Birds Ardeidae Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron Birds Ardeidae Egretta thula Snowy Egret Birds Ardeidae Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern Birds Ardeidae Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron Birds Cathartidae Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Birds Charadriidae Charadrius alexandrinus Snowy Plover Page 1 of 5 Natural Diversity Database list of species observed at Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area May 2011 Species Category Family Scientific Name Scientific Name Most Common Name Birds Charadriidae Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover Birds Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Birds Charadriidae Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden-plover Birds Charadriidae Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied Plover Birds Columbidae Columba livia Rock Pigeon Birds Columbidae Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Birds Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Birds Corvidae Corvus corax Common Raven Birds Emberizidae Melospiza georgiana Swamp Sparrow Birds Emberizidae Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow Birds Emberizidae Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Birds Emberizidae Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow Birds Emberizidae Pipilo crissalis California Towhee Birds Emberizidae Zonotrichia atricapilla Golden-crowned Sparrow Birds Emberizidae Zonotrichia leuco hr s White-crownedarrow S p Yp Birds Falconidae Falco columbarius Merlin Birds Falconidae Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Birds Falconidae Falco sparverius American Kestrel Birds Fringillidae Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch Birds Fringillidae Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch Birds Fringillidae Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Birds Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Birds Hirundinidae Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow Birds Hirundinidae Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow Birds Hirundinidae Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Birds Hirundinidae Tachycineta thalassina Violet-green Swallow Birds Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Birds Icteridae Agelaius tricolor Tricolored Blackbird Birds Icteridae Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Birds Icteridae Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird Birds Icteridae Icterus cucullatus Hooded Oriole Birds Icteridae Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird Birds Icteridae Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark Birds Icteridae Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow-headed Blackbird Birds Laniidae Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Birds Laridae Larus argentatus Herring Gull Birds Laridae Larus californicus California Gull Birds Laridae Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull Birds Laridae Larus glaucescens Glaucous-winged Gull Birds Laridae Larus occidentalis Western Gull Birds Laridae Larus philadelphia Bonaparte's Gull Birds Laridae Rynchops niger Black Skimmer Birds Laridae Sterna antillarum Least Tern Birds Laridae Sterna caspia Caspian Tern Birds Laridae Sterna elegans Elegant Tern Birds Laridae Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern Page 2 of 5 Natural Diversity Database list of species observed at Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area May 2011 Species Category Family Scientific Name Scientific Name Most Common Name Birds Mimidae Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird Birds Motacillidae Anthus rubescens American Pipit Birds Odontophoridae Callipepla californica California Quail Birds Parulidae Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler Birds Parulidae Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat Birds Passeridae Passer domesticus House Sparrow Birds Pelecanidae Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American White Pelican Birds Pelecanidae Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican Birds Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant Birds Phasianidae Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked Pheasant Birds Picidae Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Birds Picidae Picoides p ubescens Downy Woodpecker Birds Podicipedidae Aechmophorus clarkii Clark's Grebe Birds Podicipedidae Aechmophorus occidentalis Western Grebe Birds Podicipedidae Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe Birds Podicipedidae Podiceps nigricollis Eared Grebe Birds Podicipedidae Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe Birds Rallidae Fulica americana American Coot Birds Rallidae Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen Birds Rallidae Porzana Carolina Sora Birds Rallidae Rallus limicola Virginia Rail Birds Rallidae Rallus longirostris Clapper Rail Birds Recurvirostridae Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt Birds Recurvirostridae Recurvirostra americana American Avocet Birds Scolopacidae Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper Birds Scolopacidae Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone Birds Scolopacidae Arenaria melanocephala Black Turnstone Birds Scolopacidae Calidris alba Sanderling Birds Scolopacidae Calidris alpina Dunlin Birds Scolopacidae Calidris canutus Red Knot Birds Scolopacidae Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper Birds Scolopacidae Calidris himantopus Stilt Sandpiper Birds Scolopacidae Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper Birds Scolopacidae Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper Birds Scolopacidae Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper Birds Scolopacidae Calidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper Birds Scolopacidae Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Willet Birds Scolopacidae Gallinago delicata Wilson's Snipe Birds Scolopacidae Limnodromus griseus Short-billed Dowitcher Birds Scolopacidae Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed Dowitcher Birds Scolopacidae Limosa fedoa Marbled Godwit Birds Scolopacidae Numenius americanus Long-billed Curlew Birds Scolopacidae Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Birds Scolopacidae Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope Birds Scolopacidae Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope Birds Scolopacidae Philomachus pugnax Ruff Page 3 of 5 Natural Diversity Database list of species observed at Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area May 2011 Species Category Family Scientific Name Scientific Name Most Common Name Birds Scolopacidae Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs Birds Scolopacidae Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs Birds Strigidae Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Birds Strigidae Athene cunicularia Burrowing Owl Birds Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris European Starling Birds Threskiornithidae Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis Birds Trochilidae Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird Birds Troglodytidae Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren Birds Turdidae Turdus migratorius American Robin Birds Tyrannidae Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe Birds Tyrannidae Sayornis saya Say's Phoebe Birds Tytonidae Tyto aIba Barn Owl Flora Asteraceae Baccharis pilularis Coyote Brush Flora Asteraceae Carduus pycnocephalus Thistle, Italian Flora Asteraceae Cotula coronopifolia Brass-buttons Cudweed, Chilean/Cotton-batting Flora Asteraceae Gnaphalium stramineum Plant Amsinckia menziesii var. Flora Boraginaceae intermedia Fiddleneck, Common Flora Boraginaceae Heliotropium curassavicum Heliotrope,Salt/Seaside Flora Brassicaceae Brassica nigra Mustard, Black Flora Brassicaceae Lepidium latifolium Peppergrass, Broadleaved Flora Brassicaceae Raphanus sativus Radish, Cultivated/Wild Flora Chenopodiaceae Bassia hyssopifolia Bassia, Five-horn Flora Chenopodiaceae Beta vulgaris Beet, Garden Flora Chenopodiaceae Salicornia depressa Pickleweed,Slender Flora Chenopodiaceae Salicornia virginica Pickleweed, Salt Marsh Flora Convolvulaceae Cuscuta salina Dodder, Salt Marsh Flora Fabaceae Lotus corniculatus Trefoil, Birdfoot Flora Fabaceae Melilotus indicus Sourclover Flora Frankeniaceae Frankenia salina Heath,Alkali Flora Lamiaceae Marrubium vulgare Horehound, Common Flora Poaceae Avena barbata Oat,Slender Wild Flora Poaceae Bromus diandrus Grass, Ripgut Flora Poaceae Bromus hordeaceus Brome/Chess, Soft Hordeum marinum ssp. Flora Poaceae gussoneanum Barley, Mediterranean Flora Poaceae Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum Foxtail, Farmer's Flora Poaceae Parapholis incurva Sickle Grass Canary Grass, Mediterranean/Little- Flora Poaceae Phalaris minor seed Flora Poaceae Polypogon monspeliensis Beard Grass,Annual/Rabbitfoot Flora Polygonaceae Rumex conglomeratus Dock,Clustered/Green Flora Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Dock, Curly Flora Solanaceae Nicotiana glauca Tree Tobacco Page 4 of 5 f Natural Diversity Database list of species observed at Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area May 2011 Species Category Family Scientific Name Scientific Name Most Common Name Mammals Arvicolidae Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat Mammals Cricetidae Reithrodontomys raviventris Mouse,Salt Marsh Harvest Mammals Leporidae Lepus californicus Jackrabbit, Black-tailed Mammals Sciuridae Spermophilus beecheyi Squirrel, California Ground Reptiles/Amphibian s/Fish Colubridae Pituophis catenifer Gopher Snake, Pacific Reptiles/Amphibian s/Fish Hylidae Pseudacris regilla Treefrog, Pacific Reptiles/Amphibian s/Fish Iguanidae Sceloporus occidentalis Fence Lizard, Northwestern Page 5 of 5