Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20200226 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 20-04
, __, MIOPENlNSIJLA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, February 26, 2020 Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM* Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM* AGENDA Meeting 20-04 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ROLL CALL 1. Historic Structures — Review of Other Agency Policies and Practices (R-20-20) Staff Contact: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning General Manager's Recommendation: 1. Review and discuss other park and open space agency policies and best practices related to the disposition of historic structures/buildings. 2. Based on a comprehensive review of internal policies and practices, confirm that no Board Policy changes are warranted; instead, the General Manager will proceed with making administrative procedural improvements and clarifications consistent with existing Board Policy, as stated in this report. ADJOURNMENT 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Board President will invite public comment on items not on the agenda. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please complete a speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance during this section. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 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. 1. Approve February 12, 2020 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Award of Contract to Coastwide Environmental Tech, Inc., for the Abatement and Removal of Select Dilapidated Non -Historic Structures at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-20-21) Staff Contact: Leigh Guggemos, Capital Project Manager III, Engineering and Construction Department General Manager's Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Coastwide Environmental Technologies, Inc., of Watsonville, California, for a base amount of $402,000. 2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $60,300 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, bringing the total contract to a not -to -exceed amount of $462,300. BOARD BUSINESS The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. 4. Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan and Grazing Lease in Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve (R-20-09) Staff Contact: Lewis Reed, Rangeland Ecologist/Botanist, Natural Resource Department and Omar Smith, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land & Facilities Services Department General Manager's Recommendation: 1. Approve a Resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2. Adopt the Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan. 3. Amend the Toto Ranch Preliminary Use & Management Plan to reflect the adoption of the Rangeland Management Plan. 4. Approve a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to enter into a new, five-year conservation grazing lease with an option for a five-year extension at Toto Ranch with Erik and Doniga Markegard. 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 information; request staff to report to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board. Committee Reports Staff Reports Director Reports Rev. 1/3/20 ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. 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 POSTING OF AGENDA I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the special and regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on February 20, 2020, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District's web site at http://www.openspace.org. Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk Rev. 1/3/20 MILi?'Lt IN;ULA R F G IO N .7 I OPEN SPACE I Midpeninsula Regional I Open Space District R-20-20 Meeting 20-04 February 26, 2020 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Historic Structures — Review of Other Agency Policies and Practices GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Review and discuss other park and open space agency policies and best practices related to the disposition of historic structures/buildings. 2. Based on a comprehensive review of internal policies and practices, confirm that no Board Policy changes are warranted; instead, the General Manager will proceed with making administrative procedural improvements and clarifications consistent with existing Board Policy, as stated in this report. SUMMARY This is the third in a series of public meetings to review with the Board of Directors (Board) the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) policies and practices related to historic resources. At this final meeting, District staff will present the comparative findings of other park and open space agency policies, procedures and best practices. After a thorough review of District policies, practices, and procedures; the recent historic resources training; and a comparison analysis of other park and open space agencies, the General Manager recommends keeping Board Policies status quo. Although a varying degree of specificity and purpose exists amongst the various Board policies that speak to historic resources, the overarching principles and implementation guidelines remain consistent and adhere to current rules and regulations. However, the General Manager proposes certain clarifications to internal administrative procedures, consistent with Board policy, to ensure consistency and oversight of staff application District -wide, which are noted in this report. BACKGROUND The Board held a historic structures study session on August 28, 2019 (R-19-117) to receive an overview of District historic resource policies, guidelines, and practices. A second study session on November 13, 2019 (R-19-28) provided the Board with an in-depth training by Page & Turnbull, who are qualified historic resources consultants, on historic resource definitions, rules, regulations, and requirements. Responses to Board questions raised during the August and November study sessions that required additional research are provided as Attachments 1 and 2. The focus of the February 26, 2020 study session is to provide a comparative overview on how the District and other park and open space agencies approach historic resources. Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-20 Page 2 DISCUSSION The District retained 2M Associates through a Request for Proposals issued in June 2019 to augment District staff on the research, analysis, and comparison of District and other public agency historic resource policies and practices. Patrick Miller, partner at 2M Associates, is a licensed landscape architect and planner. His experience includes open space and park planning, trail planning and design, and site planning, and he has worked extensively with public agencies throughout the Bay area. Mr. Miller also assisted in developing specific policies and guidelines that form the basis of the Coastal Service Plan. 2M Associates reviewed District policies for conflicts or internal inconsistencies. They also interviewed District staff to clarify how buildings and structures are evaluated and historic resources are addressed during acquisition, site planning, and repair or maintenance work. Their interviews extended to other land and resources management agencies about their processes and policies for addressing historic resources. 2M Associates then researched the policies of the cities and counties where the District owns lands to understand the various historic preservation policies and review processes that would apply to District projects located within those jurisdictions. Findings — Comparison with Park and Open Space Agencies The Historic Resources Policies and Practice Report (Attachment 3) aggregates 2M's research and findings. It is important to note that many regional park agencies have a much broader mission than the District that explicitly includes the preservation of historic and/or cultural resources — an element that is not included within the District's mission or the missions of other open space agencies. The research and interviews revealed commonalities as well as differences in other agency practices and approaches to historic resources. There are clear shared understandings among most agencies about applying National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The extent to which there is a more focused effort on historic resource preservation is closely tied to whether historic preservation is an element within the agency mission. This difference affects levels of staffing, planning, and decision - making processes. For example, three agencies whose mission includes historic/cultural resources preservation (National Park Service, California State Parks, East Bay Regional Park District) have defined historic resources programs that are guided by historic context statements, and dedicated staff focused on the management of historic resources. Moreover, these agencies tend to focus on active rehabilitation of eligible or designated historic structures versus passive in -place preservation. In contrast, agencies like the District whose mission does not include historic/cultural resource preservation (e.g. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, Sonoma County Agriculture and Open Space District) rely on outside qualified experts for technical assessments and guidance, and most often assess resources on a case -by -case basis. However, funding constraints and the capacity to address ongoing maintenance of buildings and structures appears to be a universal issue for all agencies. Based on the research and interviews conducted, 2M Associates offers the following conclusions (refer Attachment 3). • Policy: Existing District policies conform with laws, standards, and practices about the protection of historic and cultural resources. Additional policies could be added and/or existing policies rewritten or reorganized to further clarify the inventory, evaluation, R-20-20 Page 3 designation, and disposition of historic buildings and structures. However, key policy guidelines are already in the current District policies. Instead, the District may consider creating an administrative historic resources procedural guide that houses all the relevant District policies related to historic resources and other key information such as resource inventory, and schedule recurring trainings to ensure that staff are fully informed of the steps required for historic resources management. The guidebook and training would serve as a resource for both existing and new staff to ensure consistency of application District -wide and across time. • Technical Consistency: District practices related to managing and documenting buildings and structures over 50 years old conform with the law. However, selected in- house communications and documentation practices could be strengthened in terms of maintaining the inventory and documentation of resources. Short of adding a staff position whose qualifications include cultural/architectural specialties and who would serve as a central point of contact related to management of cultural and historical resources, three actions are recommended: 1. Update and refine the GIS data base and catalog system in conformance with historic building and structure standards. 2. Centralize the written and photographic documentation of buildings and structures (and other cultural resources). 3. Include training about cultural resource management across all staff levels. General Manager's Recommendations Based on a comprehensive review of Board policies that concludes that Board policies adhere to current legal requirements, are internally consistent, and do not have policy guidance gaps, the General Manager recommends keeping Board policies status quo. However, there is a potential benefit in improving administrative procedures to ensure consistency District -wide. As such, the General Manager will implement an administrative historic resources procedural manual that compiles all relevant Board policies, ensures compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and provides process clarifications as a resource tool for current and future District staff. In addition, the General Manager plans to update and refine the District's historic resources inventory and develop a centralized process for maintaining historic resources files. Finally, the General Manager will ensure that key District staff receive historic resources training. At the February 26 Board meeting, the Board will review 2M's research results and consider whether they wish to modify the General Manager's recommendations. FISCAL IMPACT Board actions related to this Agenda Item result in no fiscal impact. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW Per Board direction, this item is being presented to the full Board. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. R-20-20 Page 4 CEQA COMPLIANCE This policy review is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS If approved, the General Manager will proceed with implementing additional administrative tools and recurring training to assist with consistent and complete implementation of Board policies related to historic structures. Attachments 1. Response to August 29, 2019 Board Questions 2. Response to November 13, 2019 Board Questions 3. Historic Resources Policies and Practices Report Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Prepared by: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Patrick T. Miller, 2M Associates Contact person: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Attachment 1— Response to Board Questions from August 28, 2019 Study Session On August 28, 2019, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) staff presented an overview of District policies that pertain to historic resources. During Board comments, questions were raised regarding alignment and whether potential inconsistencies exist among the various District policies that speak to historic resources. The following table lists the various questions raised with District staff responses. Note that the word "disposition" as used in Board policies is intended to mean the determination of what will be done with a structure, e.g. retain, rehabilitate, remove, etc. COMMENT #1: The policy statement of Policy 4.02, Improvements on District Lands, (page 1) "seems inconsistent with the Resource Management Policies and the Vision Plan (see excepts below from the August 28, 2019 Board Report [R-19-117]) as it focuses on the compatibility to the objectives in the Basic Policy, without reference to the (required) steps identified in the Resource Management Plan and elsewhere." Attachment 3 Board Policy Manual. Policy 4.02 Improvements on District Lands (na 1 of 4, under B. Policy Statement All structures and other improvements existing on District lands at the time of acquisition are potential resources and as such will be considered for retention and will be addressed in site planning documents. The District will retain, renovate or build a structure or other improvement only if it is complementary to the objectives of the District outlined in the Basic Policy. Important considerations in the decision to retain or build an improvement will be its compatibility with the open space character of the site, its potential financial burden to the District in terms of liability and management, historic value, and its proposed use. Further considerations are outlined in the Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition, board policy 4.09. Improvements that don't meet the criteria for retention will be removed as soon as practicable. Under the Open Space Vision Plan, page 4 of 7: The Vision Plan discusses overarching themes and goals that guide District work. The Natural, Cultural, and Scenic Landscapes theme includes goals related to cultural resources. Theme: Natural, Cultural, and Scenic Landscapes Subtheme: Steward Many Cultures • Protect at -risk culturally significant resources and promote their responsible stewardship • Cultivate partnerships that preserve and/or enhance cultural resources • Increase interpretation of cultural resources Subtheme: Sense of Place • Maintain a sense of place by protecting and increasing access to locally significant, iconic • natural or cultural features • Preserve the scenic backdrop and designated scenic corridors, emphasizing the view from • major roadways and parklands • Preserve the character and scenic qualities of the coast and rural areas 141SI: Attachment 2 Summary of the Resource Management Policies with references to historic structures (page 2 of 14): f Under Resource Management Mission Statement: Strategy 2- Provide an effective interdisciplinary program to protect and enhance natural and cultural resources. This program should include planning, interpretation, research, protection, maintenance, and monitoring practices. Strategy 9- Increase public knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the natural and cultural resources of the preserves, and support for their conservation. RESPONSE: The overview below explains how the District's enabling legislation, governing code, and various policies relate to one another. Governing Code The District was created in 1972 through voter initiation and is governed by its enabling legislation, Public Resource Code (PRC) 5500. Under the governance of PRC 5500, the District is guided by Board -approved policies that clarify agency principles and priorities, and the implementation framework to fulfill its mission: to preserve land, protect and restore the natural resources, provide low -intensity public access and education, and also on the coast: preserve rural character and encourage viable agricultural uses of land resources. Developed over the almost 50 -year lifespan of the agency, the District's Board -approved policies together provide fundamental guidance that informs Board decisions and the day-to-day staff work. Board -approved policies that establish District principles and priorities Policies establishing District principles and priorities include the Basic Policy, Strategic Plan, Vision Plan, Measure AA, and Coastal Service Plan. • In 1999, the Board of Directors developed a Basic Policy to affirm the mission, purpose, strategic direction, and key elements of District operations. The Basic Policy provides high-level, broad policy direction from which other more specific District policies are developed that guide policy implementation. • Adopted in 2003, the Coastal Service Plan — part guiding principles and part implementation actions — affirms the services and policies that the District will apply to all its activities on the San Mateo County Coast related to land conservation, resource management, public access, and agriculture. • Adopted in 2011 and updated annually in response to emerging opportunities and challenges, the Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives balances the District's mission of land conservation, stewardship, public access, and agriculture. The annual goals and objectives guide the annual development of the capital improvement and action plan, and budget. From the 2011 strategic planning process came the following priority setting and implementation policy documents: o Vision Plan — Completed in early 2014, the Vision Plan serves to focus, inspire, and coordinate open space conservation and management on the San Francisco Peninsula, San Mateo Coast, and South Bay regions over the next 40 years. The Vision Plan identifies 54 priority actions, divided into two tiers, to guide the annual work plan and allocation of staffing and funding resources. o Measure AA — Approved by voters in 2014, this $300 million general obligation bond provides a separate capital funding source for the top tier (top 25) Vision Plan priority actions. Under Measure AA, the District is committed to completing the top tier Vision Plan projects by 2044 (30 -year timeframe). Policies about Implementation Policies that establish how the District implements the mission, principles, strategic goals, and priorities are contained within the Board Policy Manual, Coastal Service Plan (implementation actions), and various policies, including the Resource Management Policies and Integrated Pest Management Policies. These policies guide how work is performed by District staff. Page 1 of 4 " T h e B o a r d P o l i c y M a n u a l i n c o r p o r a t e s B o a r d - a p p r o v e d p o l i c i e s a n d o r g a n i z e s t h e m i n a s e r i e s o f c h a p t e r s : 1 . A d m i n i s t r a t i o n & G o v e r n m e n t ( 1 . 0 1 1 . 1 1 ) 2 . D i s t r i c t P e r s o n n e l & B o a r d S u p p o r t ( 2 . 0 1 2 . 0 3 ) 3 . F i s c a l M a n a g e m e n t ( 3 . 0 1 3 . 0 9 ) 4 . A c q u i s i t i o n & M a n a g e m e n t o f D i s t r i c t L a n d s ( 4 . 0 1 4 . 1 1 ) 5 . H i s t o r i c a l / C u l t u r a l ( 5 . 0 1 S i t e N a m i n g , G i f t , a n d S p e c i a l R e c o g n i t i o n 5 . 0 2 G o o d N e i g h b o r P o l i c y ) 6 . G e n e r a l ( 6 . 0 1 6 . 0 8 ) " I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p o l i c i e s i n t h e B o a r d P o l i c y M a n u a l , t h e r e a r e R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t P o l i c i e s a n d I n t e g r a t e d P e s t M a n a g e m e n t P o l i c i e s t h a t f u r t h e r g u i d e D i s t r i c t p r a c t i c e s . o L a s t r e v i s e d i n J a n u a r y 2 0 1 9 , t h e I n t e g r a t e d P e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m G u i d a n c e M a n u a l d i r e c t s t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f h a r m f u l i n v a s i v e p l a n t s , i n v a s i v e a n i m a l s , w e e d s , f l a m m a b l e v e g e t a t i o n n e a r f a c i l i t i e s , a n d r o d e n t s a n d i n s e c t s i n D i s t r i c t - o w n e d b u i l d i n g s . E a c h y e a r , s t a f f c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t o f o r w a r d u p d a t e s t o t h e B o a r d f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a p p r o v a l b a s e d o n n e w s c i e n t i f i c f i n d i n g s a n d o t h e r n e w l y g a t h e r e d i n f o r m a t i o n . o L a s t r e v i s e d i n 2 0 1 8 , t h e R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t P o l i c i e s g u i d e t h e D i s t r i c t i n l a n d a n d r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t , p r o t e c t i o n , a n d s t e w a r d s h i p . D i s t r i c t s t a f f r o u t i n e l y r e v i e w B o a r d p o l i c i e s a n d a p p l y t h e p e r t i n e n t p o l i c i e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s t o e a c h B o a r d - a p p r o v e d p r o j e c t o r a c t i v i t y . W h e n i t e m s a r e b r o u g h t t o t h e f u l l B o a r d f o r a p p r o v a l , p e r t i n e n t B o a r d p o l i c i e s a r e r e f e r e n c e d i n e a c h B o a r d r e p o r t , w h e n r e l e v a n t , a s b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n . I n t h e c o n t e x t o f h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g s a n d s t r u c t u r e s , t h e B a s i c P o l i c y a n d R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t P o l i c i e s p r o v i d e b r o a d , h i g h - l e v e l g u i d a n c e a b o u t t h e D i s t r i c t ' s m i s s i o n , l a n d a n d r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t , p r o t e c t i o n , a n d s t e w a r d s h i p . B o a r d P o l i c i e s 4 . 0 1 , 4 . 0 2 , 4 . 0 8 , a n d 4 . 0 9 ( m e n t i o n e d i n t h e A u g u s t 2 8 , 2 0 1 9 B o a r d r e p o r t ) p r o v i d e s p e c i f i c p r o c e d u r a l g u i d a n c e t h a t i n f o r m s h o w t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a c t i o n s a r e c a r r i e d o u t b y s t a f f . A s a n e x a m p l e o f a s p e c i f i c p r o c e d u r a l g u i d a n c e , t h e R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t P o l i c i e s r e f e r b a c k t o B o a r d P o l i c y 4 . 0 2 , a s e x c e r p t e d b e l o w . " T h e D i s t r i c t h a s a d o p t e d " P o l i c i e s R e g a r d i n g I m p r o v e m e n t s o n D i s t r i c t L a n d s " t o p r o v i d e a p u b l i c p r o c e s s u s e d t o a s s e s s a n d d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r D i s t r i c t s t r u c t u r e s a n d i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , a n d h o w t h e y c a n m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e l y b e m a n a g e d . " ( p . 4 0 , R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t P o l i c i e s ) T h e D i s t r i c t ' s w o r k p l a n , i n c l u d i n g t h e a c t i v i t i e s , p r o g r a m s , a n d p r o j e c t s t h a t t h e G e n e r a l M a n a g e r a n d s t a f f c a r r y o u t , a r e g u i d e d b y t h e f u l l m o s a i c o f B o a r d - a p p r o v e d p o l i c i e s b o t h t h o s e t h a t a r e h i g h l e v e l a n d e s t a b l i s h t h e D i s t r i c t ' s p r i n c i p l e s , g o a l s , a n d p r i o r i t i e s , a n d t h o s e t h a t a r e m o r e s p e c i f i c a n d p r o v i d e p r o c e d u r a l g u i d a n c e t o i n f o r m t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a c t i o n s . I n c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w i n g t h e f u l l s u i t e o f p o l i c i e s ( e . g . p o l i c i e s t h a t e i t h e r s e t t h e p r i n c i p l e s , g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s , o r g u i d e t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a c t i o n s ) , D i s t r i c t s t a f f f o u n d v a r y i n g l e v e l s o f s p e c i f i c i t y a n d c r o s s - r e f e r e n c i n g a m o n g t h e p o l i c e s . H o w e v e r , t h e r e w e r e n o c o n f l i c t s i d e n t i f i e d a m o n g s t t h e s e p o l i c e s r e l a t e d t o h i s t o r i c s t r u c t u r e s . C O M M E N T # 2 : W h o d e t e r m i n e s w h e n a h i s t o r i c r e s o u r c e s e v a l u a t i o n m u s t b e c o m p l e t e d a n d t h e s t e p s t o f o l l o w f o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n ; w h o d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r t h e w o r k s h o u l d f o l l o w t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e S t a n d a r d s ? t h i s q u e s t i o n p e r t a i n s t o t h e p o l i c y l a n g u a g e i n B o a r d P o l i c y 4 . 0 2 , I m p r o v e m e n t s o n D i s t r i c t L a n d s ( b o t t o m o f p a g e 1 o f 4 , u n d e r B . P o l i c y S t a t e m e n t ) , w h i c h s t a t e s : S t r u c t u r e s o r i m p r o v e m e n t s s h o u l d b e e v a l u a t e d a t t h e t i m e o f a c q u i s i t i o n , d u r i n g t h e s i t e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s a n d w h e n r e n o v a t i o n s i n e x c e s s o f $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 o r t h a t e x c e e d t h e v a l u e o f t h e s t r u c t u r e a r e r e q u i r e d . R E S P O N S E : D i s t r i c t s t a f f h i r e a q u a l i f i e d h i s t o r i c r e s o u r c e s c o n s u l t a n t t o e v a l u a t e p o t e n t i a l h i s t o r i c s t r u c t u r e s a t t h e t i m e o f a p r o p o s e d l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n , d u r i n g t h e e a r l y p a r t o f a s i t e p l a n n i n g p r o j e c t ( e . g . n e w p r e s e r v e p l a n o r s i t e p l a n ) , a n d b e f o r e i m p l e m e n t i n g r e n o v a t i o n s o r r e p a i r s w h e n t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s m a y a f f e c t o r i n c l u d e a s t r u c t u r e t h a t i s 5 0 y e a r s o r o l d e r . A p p r o x i m a t e a g e i s d e t e r m i n e d t h r o u g h t a x r e c o r d s , h i s t o r i c a e r i a l s a n d U S G S m a p s , p r i o r o w n e r i n t e r v i e w s , p r o p e r t y f i l e r e s e a r c h , c o u n t y f i l e r e s e a r c h i n c l u d i n g p e r m i t h i s t o r y , a n d v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n . F i n d i n g s , o p t i o n s w i t h o r d e r o f m a g n i t u d e c o s t s , a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e b r o u g h t t o a B o a r d C o m m i t t e e ( R e a l P r o p e r t y C o m m i t t e e o r P l a n n i n g a n d N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s C o m m i t t e e ) o r t h e f u l l B o a r d t o s e e k f u r t h e r d i r e c t i o n o n t h e u s e a n d m a n a g e m e n t ( d i s p o s i t i o n ) o f t h e s t r u c t u r e . P a g e 2 o f 4 COMMENT #3: RESPONSE: The policy statements listed below do not reference historic significance determinations or other related historic structure assessment requirements. Without such reference, it appears that these policy statements can be independently interpreted (i.e. actions carried out without consideration of other policies or historic resource requirements). Also, the General Manager's authority related to structures that are 1500 square feet (or less) is so large as to include barns, cabins, etc., that may be of Board interest. From the August 28, 2019 Board Report (R-19-117), Attachment 3 Policy 4.02 Improvements on District Lands (top of page 2 The two policy statements that are referenced in the comment are fully informed by the preceding and succeeding policy statements from Policy 4.02 Improvements on District Lands. For full guidance on historic structures, staff refers to all elements of Policy 4.02, which states that the Board retains review and approval of any proposed demolition regardless of the size if a structure is found to be historically significant. More specifically, the top of page 2 of Policy 4.02 reads as follows: "The Board will review and approve the demolition of residential structures of any size, any structure in excess of 1,500 square feet. and any structure determined to be historically significant." of 4, under B. Policy Statement): The Board will review and approve the demolition of residential structures of any size, any structure in excess of 1,500 square feet, and any structure determined to be historically significant. The Board must also approve the construction of a residential structure of any size or any structure in excess of 1,500 square feet. The General Manager or his/her designee may authorize the demolition of any structure that does not meet the guidelines above as well as any structure that has had a major structural failure such as a collapsed wall or roof. COMMENT #4: RESPONSE: Under Section Policy 4.02, Section C., the discussion around improvements that contribute to the character of a site only references economic feasibility, which is one important factor, but not the only factor that should be considered. From the August 28, 2019 Board Report (R-19-117), Attachment 3 Policy 4.02 Improvements on District Lands (top of page 3 The Policy Statement in Policy 4.02 (page 1) references Policy 4.09, Factors to Consider for Structure Disposition, which lists a range of factors to consider for informing the decision -making process on the future use and management of a structure. While not the only factors to consider, financial feasibility and impact have been raised in the past by the Board and is noted in several Board -approved policies, including the Basic Policy and Resource Management Policies. In particular, the Basic Policy specifically calls out the following: "due to the high cost of evaluating, managing, and restoring such [historic] facilities, the District depends on grant assistance public -private partnerships, and outside assistance to support these p p p p ' pp activities. The very specific language incorporated in the Basic Policy regarding the dependence on outside funding support or partnerships to retain and protect historic structures indicates that cost has played a significant factor in informing Board decisions on historic structures disposition. In comparison, open space preservation, restoration, or recreation activities are not called out as being dependent on outside funding sources or partnerships. of 4, under C. Discussion) Some structures associated with agriculture or other former uses of the site can contribute significantly to the site without detracting from its open space character. When economically feasible within the constraints of the land management budget, p ' examples of these structures will be retained, maintained, and when possible put to use. Page 3 of 4 COMMENT #5: RESPONSE: The following policy language would be clearer if it referenced the requirements and processes stated in other relevant policies: From the August 28, 2019 Board Report (R-19-117), Attachment 4, Policy 4.09 Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition While Policy 4.09 does not specifically reference requirements and processes, as mentioned in the response to Comment #1, District staff refer to all Board policies for policy guidance that pertains to the activity or project being implemented. As a reminder, the August 28, 2019 Board report listed and summarized all Board policies that relate to historic structures. In addition, staff would follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Structures to inform District actions for structures that are deemed historic. The General Manager proposes creating an internal administrative procedural manual for the management of historic resources that compiles all relevant Board policies, highlighting the pertinent policy language. This manual would serve as a one -stop resource binder for current and future staff (top of page 1 of 4, under Purpose): Disposition of existing structures or the construction of new structures requires, at a minimum, an evaluation of existing conditions, a determination of the structure's value to the District and its constituents, short-term and long-term costs, maintenance, and staffing requirements. These factors provide a framework for discussion to assist the Board with considering the disposition or construction of a structure and to provide the public with an understanding of the factors that normally must be considered as part of the decision -making process. COMMENT #6: RESPONSE: It seems that the various policies have been developed over time and perhaps in response to an emerging issue and perhaps not in full consideration of existing policy and planning documentation. When this happens, there can be Comment noted. District staff refer to all the Board policies to find those that pertain to the activity or project being implemented. One option to ensure that all relevant policies are referenced when considering the disposition of historic structures is to create a historic resources procedural manual as noted in the response to Comment #5. This manual would be used by staff and the pertinent policies referenced in future Board reports when the Board considers taking an action that may affect a historic resource. This approach acknowledges that there are multiple Board policies that speak to the principles, goals, priorities, and implementation actions related to historic structures. inconsistencies amongst the policies, or incomplete implementation of policies if staff and the Board are expected to reference separate policies, leading to potential oversights and errors. In an effort to avoid creating more work, and rather reduce it while providing clarity, can some of these policies be collapsed into fewer documents? For instance, Attachment 4 seems to be a subset of 3. Collapsing/combing these policies would reduce the total policies by one and avoid the need for cross referencing. Another possibility may be to list the steps in evaluation, determination, and considerations regarding cultural resources and reference this information in relevant policies and documents. COMMENT #7: RESPONSE: At the top of page 44 of the Resource Management Policies, under Policy CR-3, one of the implementation measures can be further clarified by stating that the identification of unlisted, unevaluated historic resources requires specialized Comment noted. If directed by the full Board, the Resource Management Policies can be revised as suggested. The General Manager proposes to administratively add a historic resources training for all key staff (project managers and other staff responsible for implementing capital and maintenance projects related to historic structures) to the list of recurrent staff trainings. Such a training would be conducted by a qualified historic resources professional and provided every two to three years for both new and existing staff (as a refresher). training as follows (suggested edits shown in tracked changes): • Provide District basic training the how to identify staff with on methods of and protect cultural resources are identified and protected. COMMENT #8: RESPONSE: In the middle of page 44 of the Resource Management Policies, under Policy CR-4, one of the implementation measures could be change as follows to highlight the need for specialized training to assess historic structures (suggested edits shown in tracked changes): • Provide District staff with basic training on the methods of how to assess the condition, identify needed Comment noted. If directed by the full Board, the Resource Management Policies can be revised as suggested. As noted in the response to Comment #8, the General Manager proposes providing a recurring historic resources training for all key staff that covers current laws and regulations, when a historic assessment is triggered, the steps for assessing historic significance, pertinent CEQA guidelines and review process, internal and external project review and approvals, and best practices for conducting ongoing maintenance and minor/major repairs. repairs, and prepare maintenance plans for significant high priority historic structures as funds allow. Page 4 of 4 MIDP€NIN5ULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Memorandum Attachment 2 — Response to Board Questions from the November 13, 2019 Historic Preservation Training On November 13, 2019, the Board received a historic preservation training from Page & Turnbull. During the meeting, questions were raised requiring this follow-up response. To prepare this response, District staff consulted with Santa Clara County Planning staff on the County's historic preservation ordinance. Ql: In Santa Clara County, what are the implications of a building that is (1) listed on the County's Heritage Resource Inventory, (2) designated a County Landmark, or (3) eligible to be either listed on the heritage inventory or a landmark? How does this affect what the District may do with the structure and the steps that are required? Permitting Differences The County permitting process is different for a landmark structure versus a structure that is simply listed or eligible to be listed (i.e. with no landmark status). Landmark structures require higher standards of County permitting review and trigger a Landmark Alteration Permit for any proposed exterior alteration (or demolition). This includes exterior maintenance activities and minor repair work, such as repainting, replacing windows/doors, repairing exterior drainage conduits, and replacing exterior board cladding. The Mount Umunhum radar tower is a listed but non -landmark structure. Since this structure is not a landmark, the District is able to proceed with the Board -approved Long -Term Repairs without triggering a Landmark Alteration Permit. If the structure were designated as a landmark, then a Landmark Alteration Permit would have been triggered, requiring review and approval by the Historical Heritage Commission and County Planning Director for major alterations or only review and approval by the County Planning Director for very minor alterations (see below for greater discussion on Landmark Alternation Permit Review Process). Structures that are on the heritage inventory list or considered eligible, with no landmark status, are not subject to a Landmark Alternation Permit for minor exterior alterations, including minor exterior repair work. For these structures, a Landmark Alteration Permit is only triggered for demolition. For example, a Landmark Alteration permit was required in the District's application to remove several structures located at the Alma College site, because this site is listed on the County heritage inventory. Note: although the structures that will be removed are not deemed individually historically significant, because they are located on the larger, listed Alma site, this permit requirement still applies. Regardless of status (landmark or listed), a Landmark Alteration Permit is not required for interior preventative maintenance or work that does not affect the exterior appearance of the structure. Structures that have no landmark designation and are not on the heritage list, but may be considered eligible (given the results of a historic assessment), are not subject to the Landmark Page 1 of 4 Alteration Permit for any activities (i.e. minor or major alterations or demolitions). Only ministerial County permits apply (i.e. standard demolition or building permits). Landmark Alteration Permit Review Process The Landmark Alteration Permit process is an additional County permit approval (separate from standard Planning and Building Permits) that extends project implementation timelines and adds cost. For example, the Landmark Alternation Permit for the Alma College Rehabilitation Project required an additional 5 (five) months of permit review, as well as additional costs for consultant assistance to prepare the permit submittals/attend hearings and to pay for permit review fees. For major alterations (landmark structures only) or a demolition (landmark and listed), the Landmark Alteration Permit is subject to a discretionary review at public hearings by the Historical Heritage Commission (Article III, Landmark Alteration Permit, Sec. C17-15). The Historical Heritage Commission reviews the permit application and the Commission's recommendation is provided to the Director of the Department of Planning and Development (Planning Director) who will approve or deny the permit. Small alterations of landmark structures may be eligible for a Small Project Review, which only requires review and approval by the County Planning Director (does not require review by the Historical Heritage Commission). The County Planning Director must first determine that the proposed alteration to the designated structure meets the following Small Project Review criteria: 1. Involves removal of features that do not contribute to the landmark's significance. 2. Does not change exterior features. 3. Window and door replacements match the existing or original. 4. Any addition is less than 200 square feet for side and rear elevations. 5. Work does not negatively affect the integrity of the landmark. 6. Work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards Other Relevant Background Information County Heritage Resource Inventory Santa Clara County maintains a Heritage Resource Inventory of historic resources and designated landmarks. Recommendations for additions to the inventory are forwarded by the Historical Heritage Commission to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The County defines a historic resource as a building, structure, object or site that: 1. Potentially meets/is eligible for landmark designation (does not require historic assessment documentation for confirmation); 2. Is a designated landmark (requires historic assessment documentation); or 3. Is listed in federal or state registers. Issuance of a notice that a structure is being considered for inclusion on the heritage inventory is provided by mail to the property owner at least 30 days prior to the Historical Heritage Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings, and again after Board of Supervisors' approval. Owner consent is not required for the County to add a resource to the inventory. County Landmark Designation A landmark designation requires a formal public process and may be initiated by any of the following: 1. Property owner or authorized representative; Page 2 of 4 2. Historical Heritage Commission; or 3. Board of Supervisors. Regardless of who initiates the designation process, final landmark designation requires landowner consent and approval by the County Board of Supervisors. To inform the determination of a landmark designation, a historic assessment must be completed by a qualified expert who meets the professional qualification standards published by the National Park Service in the Federal Register (Code of Federal Regulation, 36 CFR Part 61), as determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation. The historic assessment must fmd that the structure meets the following criteria: 1. Fifty years or older. 2. Retains historic integrity. 3. Meets one or more of the following criteria of significance: a. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; b. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; c. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or d. Yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the pre -history or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Q2: How does the CEQA review process differ with a buildings historical status (e.g. listed on a local inventory, designated as a landmark, or considered to be eligible for listing)? For compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the District would follow the CEQA guidelines to identify a project's potential impacts on historical resources, regardless of whether a building is listed, landmarked, or eligible for listing. Broadly, the goals of CEQA are for California public agencies to identify the significant environmental effects of their actions and, either (1) avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; (2) mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or (3) adopt of statement of overriding considerations explaining why the benefits of a project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. To determine if there is a significant impact to an historic resource, CEQA provides a two-part test: (1) is the resource "historically significant" and (2) would the project cause a "substantial adverse change" in the significance of the resource? Any structure that is listed as a historic resource at the federal, state, or local level automatically is included in the CEQA review. If a District project has the potential to affect a structure that is not listed and/or for which its historical status is unknown, a historical assessment evaluation will be completed if the structure is determined to be over 50 years old. This assessment is completed to confirm the historic significance and whether such a structure needs to be included in the CEQA review. The District has numerous methods for determining whether a structure is 50 years or older to trigger a historical assessment evaluation: prior owner information; historic aerial mapping; title information; review of past County/City permit files; etc. Page 3 of 4 As part of this process, the District would retain a qualified historic preservation consultant to assess the structure using the criteria for listing found in the California Register: A. Structure is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; B. Structure is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Structure embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or D. Structure has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information about prehistory or history. If a structure is deemed to be historically significant, the historic preservation consultant will work closely with District staff to adjust the project description where possible to reduce or avoid impacts, prepare the CEQA analysis, and if needed, develop mitigation measures that follow the National Park Service Secretary of Interior's Standards. In addition, the District will consult with the appropriate County or City permitting agency on the proposed project approach and permitting requirements. For example, the District consulted and coordinated with Santa Clara County Planning Department during permit review of the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan on cost-effective and resource -protective approaches that address public safety concerns while still retaining and interpreting key elements of the cultural landscape to move forward in opening the site to public access. In the end, the County supported the removal of six non -historic, dilapidated structures while highlighting the remaining landscape features and retaining, stabilizing, and interpreting two other structures that are deemed to be individually historically significant. No additional CEQA review is necessary when future activities that may affect a historic resource have already been previously analyzed in a prior CEQA document. For example, the ongoing repair and maintenance of the radar tower at Mt Umunhum had been previously analyzed in the 2010 Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Since the recent Board -approved maintenance and repairs are consistent with this prior CEQA analysis, no additional CEQA review was required. ### Page 4 of 4 Attachment 3 Historic Resources Policies and Practices Report: A Comparison Overview of Agency Policies, Practices, and Processes Picche Winery, Picchetti Open Space Preserve February 26, 2020 2M Associates Landscape Architecture. Planning Horticulture. Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Page 1 of 12 Attachment 3 Table of Contents Introduction 1. Purpose and History of the District 2. District Policy Summary 3. District Historic Properties Evaluation and Inventory Approach 4. Regulatory Agency Policies and Practices Regarding Historic Resources 5. Interviews 6. Findings a. Common Denominators • Listing, Eligibility, and Designation • Treatment Policies b. Variations and Differences • Terminology • Documentation • Maintenance and Alteration • Demolition c. Marked Differences • Staffing • Planning and Decision Making o Case -by -Case Evaluation o Historic Context Evaluation d. Specific Considerations • Neglect and Maintenance • Looking Forward — The Cost of Wildfire • Delisting 7. Considerations for the Board • Policy • Historic Context Statement: overview • Technical Consistency Appendices A. District Policy Overview for Historic Buildings and Structures B. District Approach to Historic Buildings and Structures C. Regulatory Agency Approach to Historic Buildings and Structures D. Selected Glossary about Historic Buildings and Structures E. Resolution 77-14 Changing Name of Agency from Midpeninsula Regional Park District to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Page 2 of 12 Attachment 3 Introduction This Historic Resources Policies and Practices Report offers an analysis and comparison of District processes and those of other park and open space agencies related to historic resources, the goal being a better understanding of standard best practices of similar organizations in relation to the District's policies and practices. The report further reviews whether there are potential conflicts among existing District policies regarding the use and management of historic resources. 1. Purpose and History of the District The late 1960s was a time of rapid growth in the Bay Area. As tract housing and commercial development began to dominate the "Valley of Heart's Delight," concern for the preservation of the midpeninsula's irreplaceable foothill and bayland natural resources mounted among open space advocates. Through the determined and heart -felt efforts of local conservationists, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District was created by successfully placing a voter initiative, Measure R, on the ballot in 1972. The sentiment behind Measure R captures the intent and purpose for forming the agency. Measure R will preserve open space by creating the Midpeninsula Regional Park District. Open space is our green backdrop of hills. It is rolling grasslands - cool forests in the Coast Range — orchards and vineyards in the sun. It is the patch of grass between communities where children can run. It is uncluttered baylands where water birds wheel and soar, where blowing cordgrass yields its blessings of oxygen, where the din of urban life gives way to the soft sounds of nature. It is the serene, unbuilt, unspoiled earth that awakens all our senses and makes us whole again ... it is room to breathe. Some historically significant dates that define the District's role and policies include: • November 7, 1972. The voters of Santa Clara County approved the passage of Measure R for the creation and establishment of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District for the primary purpose of acquiring and preserving open space lands on the mid -peninsula. The District annexed the southeastern portion of San Mateo County in 1976 and annexed a small portion of Santa Cruz County in 1992. In 2004, the District expanded its boundaries to the San Mateo County coast side. • March 27, 1974. The Board of Directors adopted the Basic Policy containing five major objectives to guide the District in its effort to preserve open space (R-74-4). The latest revisions to the Basic Policy were approved by the Board on March 10, 1999. • March 30, 1977. The Board adopted a resolution to change the District's name from "Midpeninsula Regional Park District" to "Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District" to clarify the District's goals and activities focused on open space conservation. The Board desired to eliminated confusion and distinguish the District from traditional parks and recreation agencies. Board resolution no. 77-14 is included as Appendix E. Since its inception, the District's mission has focused on open space preservation efforts, where general District funding has been expended to fulfill these objectives and implementation actions. It is noteworthy to highlight that the Basic Policy identifies land preservation as the Page 3 of 12 Attachment 3 District's primary focus, with public access and restoration work as secondary elements of the mission that can be constrained based on funding/expenditure guidelines (this was later changed with passage of the 2011 Strategic Plan, which now calls for a balanced implementation of the mission). Moreover, the Basic Policy does consider the preservation of historic resources, but identifies this work as dependent on outside funding sources and partnerships. In other words, the Board made a delineation to reserve its General Funds for core elements of its mission: land conservation, restoration, and public access. Consistent with this principle, the District has historically worked closely with partners and tenants to protect and maintain historic structures, and has actively secured outside grant funds to cover a portion of the costs. Examples include the Fremont Older House, Picchetti Winery and Blacksmith Barn, and Grant Cabin. More recently, in 2014, local voters approved Measure AA, a $300 million general obligation bond to fund the top 25 priority actions listed in the District's 2014 Vision Plan. These 25 priority actions include specific cultural and historical resource projects within a broader array of land conservation, natural resource stewardship, public access, and agriculture -support projects. The Basic Policy directive to seek partnerships and/or outside funding for historic resources continues through Measure AA. In essence, Measure AA provides the outside source of funding to cover preservation, stabilization, and/or rehabilitation costs of the historic structures and sites listed in the Measure AA Expenditure Plan, keeping the General Fund reserved for core mission work. Since 2014, the District has spent approximately $1.6 million in Measure AA funds to preserve cultural and historic resources. Approximately an additional $8 million in Measure AA funds is planned to be allocated for historic and cultural resources during the current and upcoming fiscal year. These projects include the Alma College Rehabilitation, Dear Hollow Farm White Barn, La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin, and La Honda Creek White Barn. 2. Consistency Review of District Policies While organic in nature, and allowing for slightly different terminology used, a comparison of District policies, goals, and guidelines about historic buildings and structures finds no internal conflicts. Appendix A presents a table that summarizes the District's policy and planning documents related to historic resources and how they interrelate. 3. District Historic Properties Evaluation and Inventory Approach Multiple depaitnients within the District administer the identification and disposition of historic buildings and resources: Project Planning and Delivery (Real Property, Planning, Engineering and Construction); Visitor and Field Services (Land & Facilities); and Finance and Administrative Services (Information Systems and Technology). In the past two to five years, staff have updated District practices in evaluating and documenting historic buildings. However, developing a staff reference tool of specific procedures presents an opportunity for an administrative improvement to ensure consistency District -wide for the evaluation of historic buildings and structures. A summary is provided in Appendix B. Page 4 of 12 Attachment 3 4. Regulatory Agency Policies and Practices Regarding Historic Resources The District, depending on the historic building or structure project, may be required to secure permits from the County of Santa Clara, the County of San Mateo, or one of the cities and towns within the District's boundaries. Appendix C overviews these agencies, the designated advisory groups involved, the status of their historic building inventory, if they have an adopted statement of historic context, if they are a certified local government by the State Office of Historic Preservation that applies for grant funding, and the ordinance requirements for owner maintenance of listed buildings or structures. 5. Interviews To understand how other agencies address their historic resources, 2M Associates interviewed Planning staff from the following organizations about their agencies' policies, inventory, designation, disposition, staffing, and general funding related to historic buildings and structures. Park and Open Space Agencies with Historic Resources (with delineation on whether agency mission includes historic/cultural preservation) - California State Parks, Monterey District o Mission includes: "...protecting its [California's] most valued natural and cultural resources..." - East Bay Regional Park District o Mission includes: "...preserves a rich heritage of natural and cultural resources ... - Marin County Open Space District * - Napa County Regional Parks and Open Space District - National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area o Mission includes: "...to preserve and enhance the natural, historic and scenic resources of the lands north and south of the Golden Gate... ". - Santa Clara County Parks - Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority* - San Mateo County Parks o Mission states: "...San Mateo County Parks preserves our County's natural and cultural treasures...." - Sonoma County Agriculture and Open Space District* - Sonoma County Regional Parks o Mission includes: "...preserves irreplaceable natural and cultural resources ... „ * Agencies with a similar mission to the District. Counties, Cities, and Private Institutions that Regulate or Manage Historic Resources - City of Palo Alto - Town of Portola Valley - San Mateo County Planning Page 5 of 12 Attachment 3 — Santa Clara County Planning — Stanford University 6. Findings The following sections summarize the main findings obtained from these interviews about addressing historic buildings and structures. It is organized by commonalities, variations and differences, marked differences, and lastly a few separate specific considerations that may be of interest to the District. It is important to note that most agencies have a much broader mission that includes the preservation of historic and/or cultural resources as compared to the mission of the District that focuses on the preservation of regional open space, natural resource stewardship, and public access, and for the San Mateo County coastside also includes preservation of rural character and agricultural use of land resources. a. Common Denominators: In the context of identifying, evaluating, and disposing of historic buildings and structures, there are a few common references and practices shared by essentially all regional land and resource management agencies, including the District. Listing, Eligibility, and Designation: • All agencies refer to the National Park Service (NPS) Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and related criteria in evaluating buildings and structures for their historic significance. Terms such as "local", "county", or "region" are added to the designation criteria definitions. Example: Santa Clara County Historic Preservation Ordinance (Division C17, Article II) • Although state code (CCR § 4852) allows for consideration of an "exceptionally important" building to be designated as historic at any age, the federal 50 -year threshold for qualification (36 CFR Part 60) is used as the primary basis by all agencies to address historic buildings and structures. • The counties, cities, and towns within the District boundaries all maintain listings of historic buildings. In some cases, listings are contained in the jurisdiction's General Plan. The updating of the listings varies widely. • With the exception of the National Park Service (NPS) and California State Parks (State Parks), whose mission both include the protection/preservation of cultural resources, regional agencies generally do not proactively advocate for the historic listing of buildings on their properties at any level. The reasoning relates to the emphasis on either the individual agency mission related to open space and recreation, the costs to preserve a building in place, or the costs to rehabilitate, restore, or reconstruct historic buildings. • Rehabilitation (versus Preservation, Restoration, or Reconstruction) is the most common treatment implemented for listed buildings and structures in park and open space areas. Page 6 of 12 Attachment 3 Treatment Policies: Criteria in Federal and State guidelines and the State Historic Building Code (CCR Title 24, Part 8) related to the treatment of eligible or designated buildings generally provide guidance on how historic buildings are maintained and managed. b. Variations and Differences: Within the context of common reference to federal and state laws and standards, there are a number of practical, day-to-day considerations that are addressed a bit differently between individual park and open space providers. Differences are related, among other items, to such considerations as nomenclature, documentation, disposition (maintenance and demolition), and budget allocations related to historic buildings and structures. Terminology: • Terminology across jurisdictions appears to be inconsistent. Evaluation of historic resources involves a strict nomenclature. Although they are technically different, the terms "historic buildings" and "historic structures" are often used interchangeably. A building is generally considered to have a roof and walls and is intended for the shelter of persons or animals. A structure is a functional construction not used for sheltering human activity. • Another area where the use of terms vary between agencies has to do with listings, eligibility, and landmarks. It is sometimes unclear if such terms, when used, apply to local, state, and/or federal status. Each jurisdiction has a different type of list or process to administer historic resources. • For the purposes of District projects, a glossary of key words related to the District's evaluation of buildings and structures is included in Appendix D. Documentation • Documentation of the historic attributes of buildings generally consists of completing the State's Building, Structure, and Object Form (DPR 523b form). Various agencies' historic evaluations do not always include the completion of the DPR 523b form. • Photo documentation requirements may or may not follow the Secretary of the Interior 's Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation that are often but not consistently cited as mitigation requirements for buildings to be demolished. • The East Bay Regional Park District is unique in that it has an active program of curation and collections management for artifacts, documents, photographs, and other historical memorabilia. Maintenance and Alteration • There is no standard to clearly define "maintenance" vs. "alteration" of a historic building or structure. In -kind or largely similar replacement is the typical approach for maintenance. • Virtually every agency faces the challenge of insufficient funding for the maintenance of listed and designated historic buildings within its jurisdiction. • "Asset Management Plans" or similar annual budgeting reports are most often used to prioritize maintenance of buildings whether they are historic or not. Prioritization Page 7 of 12 Attachment 3 includes such criteria as: the mission of the agency; the quality of the visitor experience; accessibility; public health and safety; and resource impacts. • The Santa Clara County Parks Department prepared an Unused Structures Inventory Project Action Plan that is similar to an asset management plan to inform the strategic allocation of limited staff and funding resources. This plan recognizes the agency's need to strike a balance between recreation, public safety and natural resource protection with historic preservation, particularly of buildings with potential reuse. • Partnerships with non -profits and volunteers are the most common tools to help offset maintenance and alteration costs — Example: Sonoma County Parks and Open Space. • Limited success lies in managing and maintaining only historic structures that can generate income — Example: Napa County Parks and Open Space • Exterior alterations to historic buildings or structures listed on a local inventory or designated as a local landmark require agency consultation and likely permitting in any local jurisdiction within which the District operates. Demolition • Consideration is sometimes made as a normal practice to remove buildings that have no operational benefit (e.g., housing; storage) or long-term anticipated public use if less than 50 years old. • Demolition of a historic building that is listed on a local inventory or designated as a local landmark requires agency consultation and permitting in any local jurisdiction. Based on its local ordinances and codes, a local jurisdiction would require additional permitting such as a landmark alteration permit prior to applying for a demolition permit, which often involves public review that can challenge the justification for the demolition. • The typical mitigation palette used to varying degrees by regional park and open space providers for demolition of eligible or designated historic buildings includes: — Oral histories - Construction measures (dust control; lead/asbestos removal; habitat monitoring). - Moving the building to another site if it is technically possible to do so. - Complete documentation of the building (architecture and history report; plans, descriptions, and photos using NPS standards). - Salvaging / reuse of building materials. - Interpretation (internet; signs; programs). Example: East Bay Regional Park District — Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Environmental Impact Report. • As a best practice, some regional park and open space agencies include the same mitigation measures listed above but with less stringent salvaging and documentation requirements for the demolition of buildings that are over 50 years old yet are not listed as eligible or designated as historic. • Buildings of any age that have been identified for demolition, whether historic or not, are sometimes burned for fire department practice and enjoy a cost savings. c. Marked Differences: There are a few clear differences in the way park and open space agencies approach the management of historic buildings and structures. These are directly Page 8of12 Attachment 3 related to staffing and planning processes. Based on research, agency consultations and interview findings, the following are notable distinguishing factors between the District and other agencies: Staffing • The National Park Service and California State Parks specifically include historic interpretation and protection in their mission statements and have designated and qualified staff for cultural resource management to address all aspects of historic building evaluation and disposition. • The East Bay Regional Park District has a dedicated staff position for cultural resource management whose responsibilities include overseeing identification, listing, collection, management, and curation of historic resources as well as staff education. Architectural review is typically addressed by specific consultants through the CEQA process. • Most park and open space agencies, including the District, assign cultural resource protection to one or more staff positions who rely on outside qualified consultants for technical evaluations and consultation. Planning and Decision Making There are two broad approaches used to address historic buildings and structures. These are: Case -by -Case Evaluation — employed by the District • Most regional agencies first look at an older resource from an operational basis based on the agency's day-to-day needs. Prime considerations are if the building is accessible, can be used for housing, equipment storage or other operational use, and can be cost-effectively repaired and maintained. • Addressing the disposition of resources older than 50 years is generally accomplished as part of the CEQA process before a project is approved (or an action is selected and implemented). • If a project triggers a federal action (e.g. federal permit approval or grant award), a Section 106 consultation would take place if the building is to be altered or demolished. Historic Context Statements • The National Park Service and California State Parks both offer guidelines for developing "Historic Context Statements" to guide historic programs. The purpose of a historic context statement is to place built resources in the appropriate historic, social, and architectural context so that the relationship between an area's physical environment and its broader history can be established. A historic context statement provides the framework for evaluating a property for historic significance and integrity. It answers questions such as: • What aspects of geography, history and culture shaped the built environment of a given area? Page 9 of 12 Attachment 3 • What property types were associated with those developments? • Why are these properties important? • What level of integrity is needed for them to qualify as historic resources? A historic context statement therefore provides a comprehensive planning tool that groups information about historic properties based on a shared theme, specific time period, and geographical area. On a functional management basis, these reports establish a framework for ongoing planning and operations, and identify important historic themes that are relevant to each region. Examples: — National Park Service, Historic Resource Study, for Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Mateo County - County of Santa Clara, Department of Planning and Development - County of Santa Clara, Historic Context Statement - Monterey County Parks Department — Historic Context Statement for Agricultural Resources in the North County Planning Area, Monterey County • Cities sometimes accomplish a similar contextual result through Cultural Resource Elements in their General Plans. • System -wide regional park and open space master plans that include a specific cultural resource section may help provide such context and include qualifying criteria specific to the agency for how historic buildings might be acquired and/or managed. Examples: — East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan — Sonoma County Regional Parks - Sonoma County Integrated Parks Plan • Stanford University, as part of its 2018 Community Plan and General Use Permit document (withdrawn on November 1, 2019), prepared a historic setting and regional context statement and inventoried and categorized all the campus buildings providing a framework for Santa Clara County to consider alterations or demolition of historic buildings. d. Specific Considerations: At the November 13, 2019 Board of Directors meeting, some Board members asked specifically for additional information on the following topics regarding the stewardship of historic resources: (a) maintenance, (b) challenges with wildfire, and (c) delisting of a historic resource. Below is additional information about these topics. Maintenance • Regional park and open space agencies generally do not have adopted policies about the level of maintenance related to a historic building that are left in place. • The term "Arrested Decay" is used as a prescription for historic buildings where the minimal level of maintenance is performed to avoid the building falling over or deteriorate in a major way. Page 10 of 12 Attachment 3 • Old resources sometimes are used by listed species (e.g., bats, owls) when left alone without disturbance. • There are few examples of recorded policy decisions to leave resources in place without maintenance. Examples: National Park Service - Chaco Culture National Historic Park, New Mexico; California State Parks — Bodie State Historic Park. Looking Forward — The Cost of Wildfire • Recognizing wildfire as a norm in California's open space lands presents a special fiscal challenge for the preservation of historic buildings. • The first challenge is the fiscal cost of preserving a listed or designated historic building whether or not it is located in an urban-wildland interface area or beyond. • Based on location, there may be an unnecessary fiscal burden in maintaining defensible space regulations around unused buildings; a landscape management conflict with other habitat goals; or concern about empty buildings being a potential fire hazard or nuisance attraction. • Another consideration is that if a historic building should burn, particularly one that has no operational value for the agency per se, clear decision criteria does not exist about whether to attempt to rebuild or not. • Lastly, reconstruction of a historic resource, would be exceptionally costly. Delisting • A historic building listed on the National Register may be delisted (36 CFR § 60.15) based on the following criteria: - The qualities which caused it to be originally listed have been lost or destroyed. - Additional information shows that the property does not meet the criteria for evaluation. - Error in professional judgment. - Prejudicial procedural error in the nomination or listing process. • A historic building listed on the State Register may be delisted (14 CCR § 4856) based on the following criteria: - The historical resource, through demolition, alteration, or loss of integrity has lost its historical qualities or potential to yield information. - New information or analysis shows that the historical resource was not eligible at the time of its listing. • The eligibility, listing and landmark designation of historic buildings are, from time to time and depending on the agency maintaining the list, updated. Including the criteria listed above, the decision to delist a building could include if the building is no longer there (demolished or burned), if it no longer retains its historic integrity, a change in jurisdiction, or a need to be re-evaluated based on current standards. Example: California State Parks Requirements for Designated Landmarks prior to #770 (PRC § 5024.1) Page 11 of 12 Attachment 3 7. District Considerations Based on the research and interviews conducted, the following are highlighted conclusions and findings for District consideration. • Policy: Existing District policies in general conform with laws, standards, and practices about the protection of cultural resources. Additional policies could be added and/or existing policies rewritten or reorganized to further clarify the inventory, evaluation, designation, and disposition of historic buildings and structures. However, key policy guidelines do already exist within the current District policies. Instead, the District may consider creating an administrative historic resources procedural guide that houses all the relevant District policies related to historic resources, as well as other key information to ensure that staff are fully informed of the steps required for historic resources management. This guide would serve as a resource for both existing and new staff to ensure consistency of application District -wide and across time. • Technical Consistency: District practices related to managing and documenting buildings and structures over 50 years old conform with the law. However, selected in- house communications and documentation practices could be strengthened in terms of maintaining the inventory and documentation of resources. Short of adding a planning staff position whose qualifications include cultural/architectural specialties and who would serve as a central point for all things cultural and historical, three actions are recommended: 1. Update and refine the GIS data base listings and catalog system in conformance with historic building and structure standards. 2. Centralize the written and photographic documentation of buildings and structures (and other cultural resources). 3. Include training about cultural resource management across all staff levels. Page 12 of 12 Attachment 3 APPENDIX A: District Policy Overview for Historic Buildings and Structures The following table cross-references the District's Basic Policy components and related Board -adopted policies applicable to historic buildings and structures with specific policies, themes and guidelines contained in the District's Resource Management Policies, Vision Plan, and Coastal Service Plan, respectively. There were no internal inconsistencies noted. TABLE: DISTRICT POLICIES, GOALS, AND GUIDELINES SUMMARY Public Resources Code 5539.8(d): The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the land acquisition, improvements, and services provided by the regional district.. . benefits . . . the protection of the diverse historical, cultural, and archaeological values of the territory of the regional district. District Mission: To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity, protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education District Coastside Mission: To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. POLICY STATEMENT Basic Policy Board Policies Resource Management Policies: Adopted 2018 (1) Strategic Plan Summary Report and Strategic Plan Updates Vision Plan: Adopted 2014 (applicable Theme) Coastal Service Plan: Adopted 2004 Basic Policy Section c.: Special Use facilities, (i.e. historic structures) . . . are considered on a case by case basis. Policy CR-1 Maintain an inventory of cultural resources on District preserves. Policy CR-2 Address cultural resources in the development of preserve use and management plans. Policy CR-4 Preserve and maintain cultural resources wherever feasible. Policy CR-5 Provide public access and educational programs to interpret historical and archaeological resources. Strategic Plan - Protect and Restore the Natural Environment, Item 5: Protect cultural resources. (Cultural resource protection is included with other resource management goals in the context of the natural environment, e.g. water, sensitive species, wildfire, habitats, and thus could apply to such sites like historic ranchlands and Native American cultural sites.) N/A Guideline G.6.30: Protocol for a qualified professional to determine if structures are of historic value. Implementation Action G.6Q(i): Procedures to reduce impacts of construction and requirement that historic buildings will be addressed by a qualified Historic Architect. Page 1 of 4 Attachment 3 Basic Policy Section e.: Policy CR-1 Maintain Strategic Plan - Protect N/A Guideline G.6.3: Historic structures and an inventory of cultural and Restore the Acknowledges cultural sites will be considered for protection by the resources on District preserves. Natural Environment, Item 5: Protect cultural resources are one of the many open space District where they are associated with lands Policy CR-2 Address cultural resources in the resources. resources (endangered species, ecological acquired for overall open development of Update FY2020-21 systems, agricultural space values. Due to the high cost of evaluating, managing, and restoring such facilities, the District depends on grant assistance, public -private partnerships, and outside assistance to support these activities. preserve use and management plans. Policy CR-4 Preserve and maintain cultural resources wherever feasible. Goal 1, Objective 2: Build and strengthen diverse partnerships resources, water quality, visual resources, and unique biological resources). The District shall prepare use and management plan for resources management as defined in this Guideline. Board Policy 4.01 - Open Space Policy CR-5 Provide Strategic Plan - Protect Theme: Guideline G.6.3: Use and Management Planning Process (date: 11/13/13): Purpose and Scope of Planning Process public access and educational programs to interpret historical and and Restore the Natural Environment, Item 5: Protect cultural Natural, Cultural, and Scenic Acknowledges cultural resources are one of the many open space MROSD lands are managed to archaeological resources. Landscapes resources (endangered promote the continued preservation resources. Theme: species, ecological of their natural, historical and Update FY2020-21 Steward Many systems, agricultural cultural resources, and at the same time provide compatible public Goal 2, Objective 4: Support the . . . character Cultures Theme: Sense resources, water quality, visual resources, and recreation, environmental education, and agricultural use where possible. The Open Space Use and Management Planning Process has been established to address these management goals. The process encompasses an ongoing comprehensive approach to management, designed to respond to the dynamic changes of the of rural communities. of Place unique biological resources). The District shall prepare use and management plan for resources management as defined in this Guideline. District's environmental resources and public needs Page 2 of 4 Attachment 3 Board Policy 4.01 - Open Space Use and Management Planning Process (date: 11/13/13): The Planning Process is comprised of five planning categories, which allow for a systematic approach to the development of management plans. Policy CR-2 Address cultural resources in the development of preserve use and management plans. Theme: Natural, Cultural, and Scenic Landscapes Theme: Sense of Place Guideline G.6.30: Protocol for a qualified professional to determine if structures are of historic value. Board Policy 4.02 - Policy CR-2 Address Strategic Plan - Protect Theme: Guideline G.6.30: Improvements on District Lands cultural resources in the and Restore the Steward Many Protocol for a qualified (date: 02/08/17): All structures and other improvements existing development of preserve use and Natural Environment, Item 5: Protect cultural Cultures Theme: Sense professional to determine if structures are of historic on District lands at the time of acquisition are potential resources and as such will be considered for retention and will be addressed in management plans. resources. Update FY2020-21 Goal 2, Objective 4: of Place value. site planning documents. The District will retain, renovate or build a structure or other improvement only if it is complementary to the objectives of the District outlined in the Basic Support the . . . character of rural communities. Policy. Important considerations in the decision to retain or build an improvement will be its compatibility with the open space character of the site, its potential financial burden to the District in terms of liability and management, historic value, and its proposed use. Board Policy 4.02 - Policy CR-2 Address Update FY2020-21 Theme: Implementation Action Improvements on District Lands (date: 02/08/17): Improvements for Public Utilization of the Site: cultural resources in the development of preserve use and Goal 1, Objective 2: Build and strengthen diverse partnerships. Knowledge, Understanding, and G.6Q(i): Procedures to reduce impacts of construction and One of the District's principal roles management plans. Goal 2, Objective 4: Appreciation requirement that historic is providing low intensity Policy CR-5 Provide Support the . . . character buildings will be recreational use of its lands. public access and of rural communities. addressed by a qualified Improvements such as trails and parking lots will be considered as educational programs to interpret historical and Historic Architect. Page 3 of 4 Attachment 3 part of the site planning process. Improvements which have potential for more intensive recreational, environmental, historic, or educational use will also be considered for retention or construction; however, the willingness of other agencies or partners to bear any major costs of construction and/or management will be an important consideration. archaeological resources. Board Policy 4.02 - Policy CR-2 Address Update FY2020-21 Theme: Guideline G.6.30: Improvements on District Lands cultural resources in the Goal 1, Objective 2: Steward Many Protocol for a qualified (date: 02/08/17), Improvements development of Build and strengthen Cultures professional to determine which Contribute to the preserve use and diverse partnerships. if structures are of historic Character of the Site: (e.g., Buildings with Unique Historical management plans. Policy CR-5 Provide Goal 2, Objective 4: Support the . . . character value. or Architectural merit, Barns, Sheds and Fences). In order for the Board to determine the historical, cultural or architectural significance of a structure, the public access and educational programs to interpret historical and archaeological resources. of rural communities. District will notify and consult such agencies as specified in the Open Space Use and Management Planning Process Board Policy 4.01. Board Policy 4.08: Construction Policy CR-3 Protect Strategic Plan - Protect Theme: Implementation Action and Demolition Waste Diversion cultural resources from and Restore the Steward Many G.6Q(i): Procedures to (date 01/14/15): For every contracted District Capital disturbance to the maximum extent Natural Environment, Item 5: Protect cultural Cultures reduce impacts of construction and construction or demolition project, the following waste diversion feasible. Policy CR-4 Preserve resources. requirement that historic buildings will be guidelines shall be followed: and maintain cultural addressed by a qualified b. Historic Resource Evaluation — to evaluate potential historical significance on structures over 50 years old or containing known historical resources. resources wherever feasible. Historic Architect. Page 4 of 4 Attachment 3 APPENDIX B: District Approach to Historic Buildings and Structures In accordance with the Resource Management policies and other Board policies, the District has been implementing the long-term stewardship of the District's significant historical and archaeological sites with limited resources using largely outside expertise over the years. Prehistoric and archaeological resources are managed by the Natural Resources Department while historic structures that are already in District ownership are managed by the Planning Department with assistance from other departments to complete capital repairs and maintenance. For historic structures, the District relies on qualified historic preservation consultants to conduct assessments and develop disposition recommendations. When a property that contains buildings and structures is currently being considered for acquisition by the District, and terms and conditions of purchase allow adequate time, an evaluation is made by the Real Property Department as part of their due diligence work. If the building or structure is not listed in the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory or the San Mateo County list of historic resources and it is observed that the resource is over 50 years old and/or may contain some historic value (architectural style, association with a historical event, location, person) not previously documented, then a Historic Resources Evaluation is conducted by an independent historic resources consultant. If determined that a historic building could potentially be retained, then staff collects additional information such as: • Value to the Preserve's use and management programs or visitor experience. • Short-term, interim, or long-term use desired. • Type of immediate repairs and maintenance needed upon acquisition and type of permits required to make such repairs. • Preliminary cost estimate for immediate repair and maintenance. • Outline of what subsequent planning and engineering steps may need to occur to achieve proposed interim or long-term use. The historic status of buildings and structures is most often considered as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation to inform a discretionary action that may have a potential effect on a historic resource. Based on the conclusion of an independent Historic Resources Evaluation, the District may record an oral history of the property and/or any buildings and prior uses if it is clear that such information may have interpretive value in the future. There are approximately 517 buildings and structures currently documented in the District's GIS system. At this time no differentiation is made between buildings (primarily used to shelter for human activity) and structures (used for purposes other than human shelter). The characterization of buildings and structures is not consistent with the nomenclature used by local, state of federal agencies about historic properties. The database is not fully comprehensive and needs refinement but is actively updated as staff work on projects. Page 1 of 1 Attachment 3 APPENDIX C: Partner Agency Approach to Historic Buildings and Structures Two counties and the seventeen cities and towns within the District's boundary have to varying degrees adopted historical preservation resource policies and ordinances, and have review bodies that the District would work with on any given project about the designation, status, and disposition of historic buildings and structures. Those agencies where the District has buildings or structures within the Preserve system or is currently working with to acquire lands within their jurisdiction include : • County of Santa Clara • County of San Mateo • Cupertino • East Palo Alto • Half Moon Bay • Los Altos Hills • Los Gatos • Menlo Park • Palo Alto • Portola Valley • Woodside The following table lists each jurisdiction and: if the jurisdiction has an appointed group that advises the Board of Supervisors and/or the City/Town Council as appropriate; the status of an inventory of historic buildings and structures; if the agency has a formal statement of historical context; if the agency is a Certified Local Government recognized by the State of California Historic Preservation Office that would make it eligible for federal and state historic preservation grant program funding; and if the ordinances of the agency require specific maintenance of historic buildings and structures by the property owner. Generally, jurisdictions have an appointed committee that makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors or City/Town Council. Buildings and structures inventoried and listed by the agency, whether designated by the state or federal government as a landmark, require permits for any alteration or demolition of listed historic buildings and structures. Procedures for obtaining such permits vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Obtaining permits is not guaranteed particularly if there is significant expressed public interest. Attachment 3 TABLE: HISTORIC BUILDING REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS OF CITIES/COUNTIES WITHIN DISTRICT'S JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Appointed Advisory Review Inventory Date / Status Specific Context Statement Certified Local Government Ordinance Mandated Maintenance Requirements Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission 1999 Currently being updated Yes Yes Sec. C17-28. - Preventative maintenance. The owner, person or persons having legal custody and control of a designated landmark or historic resource listed in the heritage resource inventory shall be encouraged to implement preventative maintenance in order to prevent deterioration and decay of such designated landmark or historic resource. Sam Mateo County Historical Resources Advisory Board Updated as needed by County Planning Department SECTION 7737. Duty to Keep in Good Repair. The owner, occupant or other person in actual charge of an historic landmark, or an improvement, building or structure in an historic district shall keep in good repair all of the exterior portions of such improvements, building or structure, all of the interior portions thereof when subject to control as specified in the designating ordinance or permit, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature. Cupertino None 2015 Yes, in General Plan No applicable requirements. East Palo Alto None 2015 Yes, in General Plan No applicable requirements. Half Moon Bay None 1995 Yes, in General Plan No applicable requirements. Los Altos Hills History Committee 2007 Yes, in General Plan 11-1.13 Duty to keep landmark in repair. Every landmark shall be maintained in good repair by the owner thereof in order to preserve it against decay and deterioration. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed so as to prohibit ordinary maintenance and repair of a landmark. For the purposes of this chapter, ordinary maintenance and repairs shall mean any work the sole purpose and effect of which is to correct or prevent deterioration, decay, or damage. Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee Continually updated by Planning Department None Yes Sec. 29.80.315. Duty to keep in good repair. The owner, lessee, and any other person in actual charge or possession of a pre -1941 structure, designated landmark or structure in the LHP or landmark and historic preservation overlay zone shall keep all of the exterior portions in good repair as well as all of the interior portions which are subject to control by the terms of the designating ordinance, and all portions whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration or decay of any exterior portion. Attachment 3 TABLE: HISTORIC BUILDING REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS OF CITIES/COUNTIES WITHIN DISTRICT'S JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Appointed Advisory Review Inventory Date / Status Specific Context Statement Certified Local Government Ordinance Mandated Maintenance Requirements Menlo Park None 2013 Yes, in General Plan 16.54.080 Duty of repair. The owner, lessee or other person in actual charge of a landmark shall comply with all applicable codes, laws and regulations governing the maintenance of the property. Such person shall keep in good repair all exterior portions of the property and all interior portions whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration of any exterior portion or which are subject to control as specified in this chapter. Palo Alto Historic Resources Board / Architectural Review Board 2012 Yes Yes No applicable requirements. Portola Valley Historic Resource Committee 1998 Yes, in General Plan No applicable requirements. Woodside Woodside History Committee 2012 Yes, in General Plan No applicable requirements. Attachment 3 APPENDIX D: Selected Glossary about Historic Buildings and Structures Archaeological Site* — A site in which physical evidence of past prehistoric or historic human activity has been preserved. Cultural Landscape* — A landscape modified by past human activity or otherwise holding historical or prehistoric cultural importance. Cultural Resource* — A structure, landscape feature, archaeological site, or other artifact of human activity in the past during prehistoric or historic periods. Cultural Resource Inventory* — The District's inventory of cultural resources on District preserves. Information in this inventory may include site locations, descriptions, and photographs, as well as historical information on individual sites and preserves. Historic* — Dating from periods post-dating the use of written historical documents. In the American West, the historic period is generally considered to refer to all periods after European exploration and colonization of the region. Historic Building — A structure created to shelter any form of human activity, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar structure. Building may refer to a historically related complex such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn. (source: 36 CFR 60). Historic Context — a unit created for planning purposes that groups information about historic properties based on a shared theme, specific time period and geographical area. Historic District — a geographically definable area, urban or rural, possessing a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district may also comprise individual elements separated geographically but linked by association or history. (source: 36 CFR 60). Historic Landmark — a historic property (district, site, building, structure or object) officially recognized by a local agency, California, or the federal government whose integrity is intact and meets one or more of the following significance criteria: • Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; • Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or • Yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the pre -history or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Historic Object — a material thing of functional, aesthetic, cultural, historical or scientific value that may be, by nature or design, movable yet related to a specific setting or environment. (source: 36 CFR 60) Page 1 of 2 * As listed in the District's Resource Management Policies Attachment 3 Historic Property — a district, site, building, structure or object significant in American history, architecture, engineering, archeology or culture at the national, State, or local level. Historic Site — the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself maintains historical or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. (source: 36 CFR 60). Historic Structure — A work made up of interdependent and interrelated parts in a definite pattern of organization. Constructed by humans, it is often an engineering project large in scale. (source: 36 CFR 60). In Situ* — "In place;" at the site of original deposition or discovery. Inventory — a list of historic properties determined to meet specified criteria of significance. (source: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines). Integrity — the authenticity of a property's historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property's historic or prehistoric period. (source: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines). Open Space* — Land and water areas that remain in a natural state and are minimally developed, and may include compatible agriculture uses. Preservation (treatment) - the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code -required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. However, new exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment. The Standards for Preservation require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the building's historic form. Source: (source: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines). Rehabilitation (treatment) - the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. (source: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines). Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory* — A listing of buildings, structures, and sites that are either: designated state or federal Landmarks; County Landmarks adopted by the Board of Supervisors; potentially eligible County Landmarks as adopted by the Board of Supervisors; or potentially eligible landmarks based on a 1999 survey. The Heritage Resource Inventory is in the process of being updated. (source: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Programs/HistoricPreservation/Pages/Inventory.aspx) Page 2 of 2 * As listed in the District's Resource Management Policies HIOPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE February 12, 2020 Midpeninsula Regional Board Meeting 20-03 Open Space District SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, February 12, 2020 DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING — CLOSED SESSION President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: None Staff Present: None Public comments opened at 5:30 p.m. No speakers present. Public comments closed at 5:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title of Employee: General Manager General Counsel ADJOURNMENT President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 7:03 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Meeting 20-03 Page 2 President Holman called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:05 p.m. President Holman reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle None Members Absent: Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Engineering and Construction Manager Jason Lin, Senior Capital Project Manager Tanisha Werner ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 7-0-0 SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY • Introduction of staff 0 Liliana Price, Capital Project Manager III CONSENT CALENDAR Director Hassett pulled item 6 from the Consent Calendar. Public comment opened at 7:07 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 7:07 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, except for Item 6. VOTE: 7-0-0 Meeting 20-03 Page 3 1. Approve January 22, 2020 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Budget Amendments for Quarter 2 to the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2020 (R-20- 16) General Manager's Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Quarter 2 budget amendments (revenues and expenses) to the adopted budget for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2020. 4. Award of Contract for California Native Plant Species Propagation Services (R-20- 18) General Manager's Recommendation: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as set out in this report. 2. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Grassroots Ecology of Palo Alto, California to provide California native plant propagation services in an amount not to exceed $160,000 over four years. 5. 2020 Legislative Program (R-20-17) General Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the 2020 Legislative Program as recommended by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee, with any final changes from the Board of Directors, to set the legislative priorities and policies for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 6. Contract Amendment for engineering services with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Repair Project (R-20-19) General Manager's Recommendation: Authorize a contract amendment in the amount of $89,975 with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., of Emeryville, California to provide construction documents, construction administration, and as -built drawings for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Repair Project, bringing the contract to a not -to -exceed grand total amount of $213,830. Director Hassett commented on his continued opposition to funding the contract without additional funding from outside sources. General Manager Ana Ruiz provided an update on a potential outside funding source for Mount Umunhum Tower Radar Tower repairs. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to approve the General Manager's recommendation. VOTE: 6-1-0 (Director Hassett dissenting) Meeting 20-03 Page 4 BOARD BUSINESS 7. Administrative Office Project — Project Update (R-20-15) Engineering and Construction Department Manager Jason Lin provided the staff recommendation summarizing the project milestones to date and proposed schedule. Director Hassett spoke in favor of hiring a qualified contractor that has a solid reputation. Director Siemens concurred and suggested various contractors for outreach during the bidding process. Director Kishimoto requested an update regarding lighting and HVAC systems. Director Riffle requested information at a future project update regarding the environmental sustainability of the building. Director Kersteen-Tucker requested an update regarding tenant leases. Senior Real Property Specialist Allen Ishibashi reported on the expiration of current tenant leases explaining that the leases will end on or before January 31, 2021. Mr. Lin provided an update on potential wood sources for use in the building design. Project Manager Erik Skiba and Designer Jane Catalano with Noll & Tam provided project design updates related to bench and sign design, Board room design, bird safe glass, and tenant space. Board members spoke in favor of the bench design and the need to protect the benches from vandalism. Director Holman spoke in favor of potentially having multiple bench designs depending on the location of the benches. Additionally, she suggested members of the public could potentially sponsor the benches to help offset the cost. Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in favor of interpretive signage related to salvaged and recycled materials. Directors Cyr, Siemens, and Holman spoke in favor of the street signage embedded into the rock wall. Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of a horizontal sign placement. Director Riffle spoke in favor of the street signage not being embedded into the rock wall. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to have the exterior street signage embedded into the rock wall. VOTE: 5-2-0 (Directors Kishimoto and Riffle dissenting.) Meeting 20-03 Page 5 Ms. Catalano provided an update regarding interior wall materials. Director Siemens spoke in favor of using high -quality speakers in the Board room and the type of chairs to be used in the Board room. Directors Siemens and Cyr spoke in favor of using redwood on the dais. Directors Hassett and Holman spoke in favor of using acacia wood for the dais. Director Holman spoke in favor of seating staff separately from the Board. The Board members provided comments regarding the Board room layout and materials. Directors Siemens and Holman spoke against use of higher chairs and tables in the District's administrative office. Directors Riffle, Hassett, Cyr, and Kersteen-Tucker spoke in favor of mixing chair designs to accommodate various ages of members of the public. Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in favor of including as many power outlets as is possible for the atrium area for staff and members of the public to use. Director Holman spoke in favor of having a variety of heights for work surfaces. Director Kersteen-Tucker left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Director Hassett suggested reuse of the current administrative office's flagpole at the new office. Director Holman inquired if the Board should consider installation of a control room for camera operators and potential streaming of public meetings. Director Holman spoke in favor of having the dais slightly raised in the Board room. Public comments opened at 8:43 p.m. No speakers present. Public comments closed at 8:43 p.m. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Radar Tower Roof Repair Peer Review INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports Meeting 20-03 Page 6 Director Hassett reported the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee met on January 28, 2020. B. Staff Reports Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan reported the District recently resubmitted a letter to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisor supporting a 4/5 approval requirement related to Stanford General Plan Amendments. Assistant General Manager Brian Malone provided an update related to several projects, including vegetation clearing along Highway 17 for wildfire fuel reduction, replacement of the Betsy Crowder memorial bench, delay of the Red Barn painting, and eucalyptus tree removal along Page Mill Road in Fall 2020. Finally, Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian is holding a public meeting regarding Lehigh Quarry in Cupertino on February 13, 2020. Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak reported the California branch of the International City and County Manager's Association presented the District with the Overall Champion award recognizing the District's efforts in talent recruitment, staff retention and development, and organizational culture. Ms. Ruiz reported on staff's recent meeting with wildlife protection groups regarding the District's conservation grazing program, where District received positive feedback and reviews for its program. The District recently held a full -day staff training on historic structures. Ms. Ruiz reported on the District's legislative event held in Sacramento on February 11, 2020 and the upcoming State of the Valley event on Friday. Finally, Ms. Ruiz also reported on recent meetings with other environmental organizations and agencies related to state and regional initiatives. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. Directors Hassett and Riffle reported their attendance at the February 6, 2020 La Honda Public Access Working Group meeting. Director Siemens spoke regarding roadside parking near District preserves, which will need to be addressed by the District. Directors Cyr, Kishimoto, and Holman reported their attendance at the Santa Clara County State of the County event. Director Riffle reported that he and staff provided a briefing to San Mateo Supervisor Carole Groom. Director Holman reported she and Director Kersteen-Tucker toured Lehigh Quarry. Director Holman reported the District recently provided presentations to East Palo Alto and Menlo Park City Councils on District project updates. Director Holman reported she will be attending a meeting of the Bay Restoration Authority on February 14, 2020. ADJOURNMENT Meeting 20-03 Page 7 President Holman adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 9:12 p.m. Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 1120-04 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT: 53.46% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT: 29.44% Payment Payment Payment Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount Number Type Date 1701 EFT 02/07/2020 10343- GRANITE ROCK COMPANY Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project thru 12/31/19 344,335.10 1744 EFT 02/21/2020 10343 - GRANITE ROCK COMPANY BCR Public Access Project -10/1-10/31 121,475.59 1751 EFT 02/21/2020 12002- NOLL & TAM ARCHITECTS New Administration Offices (AO) Facility Professional Srvs Dec 2019 92,479.19 1694 EFT 02/07/2020 11840- COMMUNITY TREE SERVICE, INC Tree Mitigation Installation (100 Acorn Basins) - BCR 88,500.00 1720 EFT 02/14/2020 10137- ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. GIS Software Enterprise License Agreement - 1/24 /20 - 1/23/21 42,500.00 1746 EFT 02/21/2020 11593 - H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES RW Bay Trail Consulting Biomonitoring thru 12/19/Bat Exclusion at A Frame 37,806.17 80984 Check 02/21/2020 11489- HARO KASUNICH & ASSOCIATES INC. Toto Ranch Ponds Geotechnical Analysis Project 27,575.25 80953 Check 02/07/2020 11379- CALTRANS Hwy 17 Wildlife Crossing CalTrans Co -Op Agreement 26,859.38 1747 EFT 02/21/2020 11998- Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation Mindego Ranch Ponds Enhancement Project - Dec 2019 26,512.12 1698 EFT 02/07/2020 10546- ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS INC IPM: Revitalize Stream, Upland, and Wetland Habitats 22,736.00 1764 EFT 02/21/2020 10978- VOLLMAR NATURAL LANDS CONSULTING, LLC Vegetation Monitoring/2019 Botanical Surveys & Riparian Impact Assessments 22,141.60 1712 EFT 02/07/2020 11241- QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION BCR Phase 2 Trail Design and Permitting 20,989.43 1730 EFT 02/14/2020 11432 - SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Control of Slender False Brame 10/1/19- 12/31/19 20,241.40 80955 Check 02/07/2020 11049 - CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO Reimbursement Request - Cooley Landing Park Project PH IV & V 19,611.56 1704 EFT 02/07/2020 10794- John Northmore Roberts & Associates Bear Creek Stables Improvements Professional Services Dec 2019 19,094.02 1706 EFT 02/07/2020 10791- LSA Associates, Inc. Alpine Rd. CEQA/Permit Support and LHC Loop Trail Permit Support 13,600.50 1693 EFT 02/07/2020 12086- Coastwide Environmental Technologies, Inc. Retainage Release 12,886.00 1722 EFT 02/14/2020 11492 - HAWK DESIGN & CONSULTING LHC Agricultural Workforce Housing Project/Scope Modification at 1185 Skyline 12,606.61 80972 Check 02/14/2020 12018 - P6 & E CFM/PPC Department 240 Cristich Lane Gas Service Relocation 12,216.83 1713 EFT 02/07/2020 12100- Questica Ltd. Budget Management Software 12,000.00 1696 EFT 02/07/2020 12106 - CSG Consultants, Inc. General Engineering Consulting Services thru 12/31/19 11,382.50 1691 EFT 02/07/2020 10616 - BKF ENGINEERS ADA Barrier Removal Project 11/25 - 12/29 10,115.50 1702 EFT 02/07/2020 11859.- Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Programmatic Environmental Permitting 9,299.60 1734 EFT 02/14/2020 10350 - VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS Gordon Ridge Appraisal (811 La Honda Road. San Gregorio) 9,000.00 80959 Check 02/07/2020 11930 - R Brothers Painting Inc Paint and caulk exterior at 21161 Skyline Ranch Rd 8,808.00 1723 EFT 02/14/2020 10791- LSA Associates, Inc. Alpine Rd. CEQA/Permit Supportand LHC Loop Trail Permit Support 7,585.41 1716 EFT 02/07/2020 * 10216- VALLEY OIL COMPANY Fuel for District vehicles 7,542.63 1745 EFT 02/21/2020 12088 - GSL Fine Lithographers RSA Postcard Mailing Postage/Quarterly Newsletter Postage 6,418.50 1707 EFT 02/07/2020 11617- MIG, INC. LH Public Access Working Grp Facilitation Srvs/ADA Plan Update 6,355.50 1736 EFT 02/14/2020 11665 - Waterways Consulting Design & Engineering Services for Alpine Road 6,266.25 1748 EFT 02/21/2020 10452 - IFLAND SURVEY Prop. Line & Record of Survey at Twin Creeks 6,153.00 1708 EFT 02/07/2020 10031- MILLS DESIGN Winter 2019 Newsletter/MAA Update Poster/Dog Waste Bins Flyer 6,100.00 80989 Check 02/21/2020 11129 - PETERSON TRUCKS INC. SFO BITS Inspections - 16 District Vehicles 5,424.45 1729 EFT 02/14/2020 10099 - SAN FRANCISCO BAY BIRD OBSERVATORY American Badger & Burrowing Owl Habitat Suitability Study/Grant Reimbursement 5,302.10 1689 EFT 02/07/2020 11470- AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. Brush Encroachment 5,030.00 80963 Check 02/14/2020 11680 - BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES INC Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project - Dec 2019 4,583.00 1761 EFT 02/21/2020 12098- The Training Clinic, Inc. Project Management Leadership Academy 1/29/20 4,480.80 1752 EFT 02/21/2020 10925 - Pape Machinery T20 Lens for John Deere/Service Repair T27 4,058.38 1727 EFT 02/14/2020 11241- QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project- Engineering Services 3,984.32 1719 EFT 02/14/2020 11748- ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY CONSULTING State Funding Consulting and Lobbying Services -January 2020 3,750.00 1766 EFT 02/21/2020 * 11118- Wex Bank Fuel for District vehicles 3,635.82 1742 EFT 02/21/2020 10642- Forensic Analytical Consulting Services, Inc. Clearance Air Sampling at 20000 Skyline Blvd. 2,396.50 1718 EFT 02/14/2020 11799- AZTEC LEASING, INC. Printer/copier leases - 6 machines -1/1/20 through 1/31/20 2,326.07 1700 EFT 02/07/2020 10187- GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Oil Filters, Chain Saw Parts, Safety Helmets 2,307.58 1737 EFT 02/21/2020 10294 - AmeriGas - 0130 Propane for 16060 Skyline Blvd & 20000 Skyline Blvd 2,241.61 Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors page 1 of 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 1120-04 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT: 53.46% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT: 29.44% Payment Payment Payment Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount Number Type Date 1697 EFT 02/07/2020 10032- DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE Janitorial Services and Supplies - January 2020 2,223.00 81000. Check 02/21/2020 11618- TRAIL PEOPLE Hwy 17 Wildlife Crossing -January 2020 2,188.00 1717 EFT 02/14/2020 11434 - 2M ASSOCIATES Hist. Resources Policy Dev. Consultant Proj. Mgr. Srvs. Dec 2019 2,170.00 1741 EFT 02/21/2020 10032- DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE Janitorial Services and Supplies - February 2020 2,138.00 1711 EFT 02/07/2020 12033 - PENINSULA JOINT POWERS BOARD (CALTRAIN) 2020 Go Pass Program - 6 Eligible Users 2,052.00 1738 EFT 02/21/2020 10263 - BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON Escrow Agent & Administrative Fees 2/1/2020 - 1/31/2021 2,000.00 1739 EFT 02/21/2020 10723 - Callander Associates Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Design & Construction Mgmt 1,975.33 1690 EFT 02/07/2020 10294- AmeriGas - 0130 Propane Refill (FF0) 1,956.24 1756 EFT 02/21/2020 12082- Sicular Environmental Consulting LH Forest Mgmt Plan - Finalize & submit draft inventory design 1,955.00 1762 EFT 02/21/2020 10146- Tires On The Go Tire Replacement - M213, M29 1,885.53 80974 Check 02/14/2020. 11129- PETERSON TRUCKS INC. FFO BIT Inspections 1,834.63 80976 Check 02/14/2020 11108 - SAN MATEO COUNTY Req for Determination of General Plan Conformity 1,744.50 80965 Check 02/14/2020 12094 - City and County of San Francisco Staging Area Fee - Ravenswood OSP February 2020 1,666.66 80973 Check 02/14/2020 10079- PAGE &TURNBULL Hist. Resources Policy Development Consultant Training Dec 2019 1,500.00 80988 Check 02/21/2020 10180 -PG&E PG&E Advance For Engineering Review at 20000 Skyline Blvd 1,500.00 1754 EFT 02/21/2020 10140- PINE CONE LUMBER. CO INC Lumber for picnic table- Redwood trail - PC 1,464.80 1735 EFT 02/14/2020 * 10216- VALLEY OIL COMPANY Fuel for District vehicles 1,462.76 80968 Check 02/14/2020 10714- LANGAN ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC Geotech Letter for Alma Rehab Project 11/23- 12/30 1,428.75 80969 Check 02/14/2020 10058- LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE Human Resources Legal Consulting thru 12/31/19 1,358.00 1767 EFT 02/21/2020 11830 - ZIONS BANK Annual Admin Fee - Green Bonds 201712/19 -11/20 1,350.00 1733 EFT 02/14/2020 10146- Tires On The Go Tire Replacement - P94,M24 1,328.07 80978 Check 02/14/2020 12044- US Central & Southern Province, Society of Jesus 180 digital images 1,307.00 80996 Check 02/21/2020 10580- SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS Printer/copier leases - 6 machines - 12/29/19 - 1/27/20 1,273.28 80987 Check 02/21/2020 10397 - OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY Sectional Door Repair (FFO) 1,232.10 80995 Check 02/21/2020 * 10136- SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service (BCR), (RSACP) 1,170.01 1758 EFT 02/21/2020 * 10952- SONIC.NET Internet provider 3/1/2020 - 3/31/2020 1,170.00 80967 Check 02/14/2020 11498 -JOANNE BOND COACHING Executive Coaching 1,000.00 1715 EFT 02/07/2020 11895- TIMMONS GROUP, INC. Work Order and Asset Management 980.00 80983 Check 02/21/2020 11551- GREEN TEAM OF SAN JOSE Garbage Service (RSA), (SAO) 895.73 1695 EFT 02/07/2020 11318 - CONFLUENCE RESTORATION Plant Site Maintenance for BCR/Alma/Webb Creek 840.75 1757 EFT 02/21/2020 10447 - SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Assess & Repair Water Leaks at 5701 La Honda 828.38 1705 EFT 02/07/2020 12040-1W Heating and Air Conditioning HVAC Troubleshoot/Repair at 21170 Skyline Ranch Rd 765.00 80960 Check 02/07/2020 10176- RE BORRMANN'S STEEL CO Bat Shed Materials (BCR) 648.48 1721 EFT 02/14/2020 10169- FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS Door Handle Replacement (FFO)/Lock & Keys Restock 647.38 80982 Check 02/21/2020 * 10454- CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO -949 Water Service (FFO) 570.57 80951 Check 02/07/2020 11851- ANDY'S ROOFING COMPANY, INC Repair Roof Leak and Assess Roof Condition at 2200 Lobitos Ck Rd 563.61 80956 Check 02/07/2020 11530- COASTSIDE.NET Skyline Broadband & Antenna Rental 02/01/20 - 02/29/20 550.00 80964 Check 02/14/2020 10014 - CCOI GATE & FENCE Gate Repairs (SA) 500.00 1765 EFT 02/21/2020 11388 - WAGNER & BONSIGNORE Water Rights Services 481.25 80980 Check 02/21/2020 * 10261- ADT LLC (Protection One) Alarm Services For AO, A02, A03, A04 & Cristo Rey 469.86 1740 EFT 02/21/2020 10544- CORELOGIC INFORMATION SOLUTION Property Research Services - January 2020 463.50 80997 Check 02/21/2020 11961- Telepath Corporation P88 Strip Out 450.00 80952 Check 02/07/2020 12118 - AVILA ELECTRIC Repair Electrical at Hosking Barn #C 400.00 80975 Check 02/14/2020 10194- REED & GRAHAM INC Erosion Control Material (BCR) 393.30 1728 EFT 02/14/2020 12031- Ray & Jan's Mobile Truck Service P102 Flush cooling system & add solvent 384.13 Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors page 2 of 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 1120-04 Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors MEETING DATE: February 26, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT: 53.46% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT: 29.44% Payment Payment Payment Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount Number Type Date 80998 Check 02/21/2020 10338 -THE ED JONES CO INC Ranger Retirement Badges 377.97 80949 Check 02/07/2020 11863 - ALBION ENVIRONMENTAL INC On -Call Archaeological - Task Order 2- Mud Lake Construction 364.04 80979 Check 02/21/2020 12041 - A T & T Mobility (FirstNet) EOC Emergency Phones (8) 354.21 80999 Check 02/21/2020 10307 - THE SIGN SHOP 2 - Custom Signs, 1 Vinyl Lettering 352.07 80966 Check 02/14/2020 11701- ERIC GOULDSBERRY ART DIRECTION On -Call Graphic Design Services - Lobby Mission Statement 337.50 1760 EFT 02/21/2020 11780- TERRY I MARTIN ASSOCIATES Inspection/Construction Monitoring 337.00 80993 Check 02/21/2020 10093 - RENE HARDOY AO Gardening Service 325.00 80994 Check 02/21/2020 * 11526- REPUBLIC SERVICES Garbage Service for 16060 Skyline 311.01 80992 Check 02/21/2020 10589- RECOLOGY SOUTH BAY Recycling Debris Box 307.92 1709 EFT 02/07/2020 10271- ORLANDI TRAILER INC M221 Trailer Hitch/Receiver 298.43 1710 EFT 02/07/2020 10925 - Pape Machinery Oil & Filters for Equipment & Vehicles 296.71 80962. Check 02/14/2020 10815 - AMERICAN RED CROSS 13 Adult & Pediatric CPR/AED 286.00 1724 EFT 02/14/2020 10190- MetroMobile Communications Shoulder Mics for Radios 273.33 1692 EFT 02/07/2020 11620- BURUNGAME HEATING & VENTILATION INC. Heater Repair at Bectel House 268.75 1749 EFT 02/21/2020 10394- INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRO Pedestrian Signs (SA -Mt Um) 257.83 1703 EFT 02/07/2020 12091- Intentional Communication Consultants Management Coaching 250.00 80981 Check 02/21/2020 10815- AMERICAN RED CROSS 10 participants -Adult & Pediatric CPR AED 220.00 1743 EFT 02/21/2020 10187- GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Fuel filters 213.37 1763 EFT 02/21/2020 11596- Toshiba America Business Solutions CPC Billing 12/15/2019 - 1/14/2020 212.32 1726 EFT 02/14/2020 11144- PENINSULA MOTORSPORTS ATV 3 Annual Service 205.55 1750 EFT 02/21/2020 11326- LEXISNEXIS Online Subscription for January 2020 198.00 1731 EFT 02/14/2020 10447- SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Clear Sink Drain Line 180.00 80958 Check 02/07/2020 10135- PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC. Welding Materials for Shop (FFO) 174,39 1725 EFT 02/14/2020 10288 - Mission Valley Ford Truck Sales, Inc. Oil & Coolant for Diesel Trucks 174.04 80954 Check 02/07/2020 10168- CINTAS Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO) 168.95 1699 EFT 02/07/2020 11151- FASTENAL COMPANY Security drill bits 155.55 80985 Check 02/21/2020 10260- LUND PEARSON MCLAUGHLIN AO Fire Sprinklers Test 150.00 80971 Check 02/14/2020 11037 - Occupational Health Centers of Calif. (Concentra) DOT Recertification 145.00 80986 Check 02/21/2020 10664- MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS AO Garbage Service 140.51 1759 EFT 02/21/2020 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Base Rock (RSACP) 139.38 80977 Check 02/14/2020 10954- SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY Training for Augustine 126.00 1753 EFT 02/21/2020 10253 - Peterson Tractor Co. Hydraulic Fluid for Tractors 99.35 1755 EFT 02/21/2020 11042- SANTA CLARA COUNTY -OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Live scan Dec 2019 69.00 80957 Check 02/07/2020 10160- OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN 9 Desk pad calendars 47.98 1714 EFT 02/07/2020 11732 - SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY Slender False Brome Research 42.28 1732 EFT 02/14/2020 10143- SUMMIT UNIFORMS Sew Patches to Uniform 40.00 80950 Check 02/07/2020 10815- AMERICAN RED CROSS CPR - FPR - Safety Program 30.00 80991 Check 02/21/2020 10134- RAYNE OF SAN JOSE Water Service (FOOSP) 29.24 80961 Check 02/07/2020 10165 - UPS Shipping Charges - AO 16.80 80970 Check 02/14/2020 10670- O'REILLY AUTO PARTS P85 Light Replacement 10.57 80990 Check 02/21/2020 11184- PURCHASE POWER - PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE Postage Meter Refill Fee 9.99 1,203,875.91 Annual Claims Hawthorn Expenses page 3 of 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 4 20-04 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2020 Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors Fiscal Year to date EFT: 53.46% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT: 29.44% Vendor No. and Name A### = Administrative Office Vehicle A02, A03, A04 = Leased Office Space BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods CAO = Coastal Area Office CC = Coal Creek DHF = Dear Hollow Farm ECdM = El Corte de Madera ES = El Sereno FFO = Foothills Field Office FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pres. GP = General Preserve HR = Human Resources IPM = Invasive Plant Maintenance ISM = Invasive Species Management LH = La Honda Creek LR = Long Ridge LT = Los Trancos M### = Maintenance Vehicle MB = Monte Bello MR = Miramontes Ridge OSP = Open Space Preserve Invoice Description Abbreviations P### = Patrol Vehicle PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods PIC= Picchetti Ranch PR = Pulgas Ridge RR = Russian Ridge RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill RSA = Rancho San Antonio RV = Ravenswood SA = Sierra Azul SAO = South Area Outpost SAU = Mount Umunhum SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area SFO = Skyline Field Office SG = Saratoga Gap SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill SR= Skyline Ridge T### = Tractor or Trailer TC = Tunitas Creek TH =Teague Hill TW = Thornewood WH = Windy Hill Payment Amount page 4 of 4 !.'I L:' ' LNIN;U LA R F ii 1 0 N .7 I OPEN SPACE I Midpeninsula Regional I Open Space District R-20-21 Meeting 20-04 February 26, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract to Coastwide Environmental Tech, Inc., for the Abatement and Removal of Select Dilapidated Non -Historic Structures at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Coastwide Environmental Technologies, Inc., of Watsonville, California, for a base amount of $402,000. 2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $60,300 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, bringing the total contract to a not -to -exceed amount of $462,300. SUMMARY The recommended contract will allow the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) to remove six dilapidated non -historic structures at the former Alma College site (Alma site) in Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve to begin preparing the site for safe public access. The foundations of four structures will remain in place for interpretation as part of the Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project that will also retain and stabilize two buildings deemed historically significant. District staff issued a Request for Bids (RFB) on January 8, 2020 and received four bid proposals on February 5, 2020, with Coastwide Environmental Technologies, Inc., identified as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The General Manager recommends awarding a contract to Coastwide Environmental Technologies, Inc., for a base amount of $402,000 and authorizing a 15% contingency amount of $60,300. Sufficient funds are included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Budget. Work is scheduled to begin in March 2020 and be completed in May 2020. BACKGROUND Project History, Prior Board of Director Approvals, and County Permit Approvals On January 25, 2017, the Board of Directors (Board) approved the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan (Rehabilitation Plan) as part of the larger Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan (R-17-15). The purpose of the Rehabilitation Plan is to implement a fiscally sustainable clean-up and rehabilitation of the Alma site that allows the site's cultural significance to be understood and safely enjoyed by the public. The Rehabilitation Plan calls for removal of six dilapidated non -historic structures to facilitate safe public access while retaining and interpreting select elements of the layered Cultural Landscape at the Alma College site. The six structures recommended for removal include a R-20-21 Page 2 concrete masonry unit (CMU) shed, lower carport, upper garage level (lower level will remain as a retaining wall), classroom building, dormitory ruins, and the 1950 concrete library. See Attachment 2 for Work Area Map. The CMU shed, lower carport, and upper garage are deteriorated and ancillary to the historical uses of the site and hold no historic significance. The 1950 concrete library, classroom, and dormitory ruins were found not to hold individual historic significance. All of the structures slated for removal sit atop or within 100 feet from traces of the San Andreas Fault. In accordance with mitigation measures in the certified EIR, architectural historian consultants and staff have documented the structures that are planned for removal through a written history and photographs. The documentation will be submitted to the Santa Clara County Library and the Jesuit Archives prior to removal as required in the EIR. In order to begin implementing Phase 1 of the Rehabilitation Plan (i.e. structure removal and site cleanup), District staff secured a Landmark Alteration Permit from Santa Clara County (County) in Winter 2019 and demolition permits in Fall 2019. The permits to complete Phase 2 of the Rehabilitation Plan (i.e. structure stabilization and site improvements) are currently under review with the County Planning Department and anticipated to be approved in Spring 2020. Bat Protection Measures In 2015 and 2016, H.T. Harvey and Associates conducted fall, winter, and summer biological surveys at the Alma site and found that the structures support several species of day -roosting and maternity -roosting bats, including special -status species. Potential impacts to bats and their habitat was studied in the EIR. The EIR included mitigation measures to construct replacement roosting habitats for the bats and to exclude the bats from the existing structures prior to any abatement or removal activities. In 2018, staff constructed two replacement bat roosting habitat structures, approximately 10 feet square by 14 feet high, near Bear Creek Stables. Additionally, in 2019, the Upper Carport, an open-air brick and mortar structure that will remain on the Alma site, was retrofitted as a third replacement bat habitat structure. The retrofit included infilling of existing openings and installing roosting crevices and adjustable entrances that allow the District staff to adjust the temperature inside the structure. The two structures near Bear Creek Stables have been periodically surveyed for bat use. To date bats have been found roosting in constructed crevice habitat on the exterior of the structures and small accumulations of guano have been found inside. The Upper Carport structure was surveyed for occupancy in early February. A single bat was found roosting on the exterior and a moderate accumulation of guano was found inside the structure, indicating that the habitat is being actively used by bats. Once the District fully implements the Rehabilitation Plan, H.T. Harvey will complete a five- year monitoring effort of replacement habitat by tracking temperatures inside the structures, completing summer exit counts, winter inspections, and annual summer mist netting surveys. This monitoring effort will determine how well the structures are functioning as replacement bat habitat. Results will be compared against success criteria to determine if adjustments need to be made to improve habitat performance. R-20-21 Page 3 DISCUSSION Implementation of the Rehabilitation Plan was split into two phases to account for the County permit review schedule and avoid potential impacts to bats during the maternity season (April 15 through August 31) and hibernation period (November 16 through February 15). The recommended contract under Board consideration will implement Phase 1: structure removal and site cleanup, which is planned for completion by June 2020. Phase 2 is scheduled to begin Summer 2020 and consists of stabilizing two historic structures, site grading and pathway/trail construction, and revegetation. The recommended contract includes the installation of bat deterrence and exclusion measures by April 14, 2020, before maternity season begins, to avoid potential impacts to bats during abatement and site cleanup activities. Exclusion measures will also be installed on the 1934 Library and Chapel, which are the two historically significant structures that will remain in place and be stabilized as part of Phase 2. Deterrence of bats at structures slated for removal will primarily involve carefully exposing roost areas to air flow and light to encourage bats to move out of the dilapidated structures and relocate into new areas, including the new bat habitat structures that were recently constructed. Exclusion at the buildings to remain will be achieved by closing the structures and installing one-way access devices that allow the bats to safely leave but not re-enter. In addition, high -frequency acoustic deterrence will be deployed in areas of high bat occupancy. With the new bat habitat structures in place, the displaced bats have suitable places to relocate. In summary, the scope of work of the recommended contract includes the following: • Installation of bat deterrence and exclusion measures on the classroom and 1950 concrete library (to be removed), garage lower level (to remain), and the 1934 library and chapel (to be stabilized as part of a future contract) • Remediation and abatement of hazardous materials (such as asbestos, lead, bat guano, and rat droppings) from the dormitory, classroom, 1950 concrete library, and garage • Removal of the dormitory, classroom, 1950 concrete library, and upper garage level, leaving foundations in place for interpretation • Complete removal of the CMU shed and lower carport • Waste diversion of all non -hazardous demolition materials, as required by Board Policy 4.02 Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion • Clean up and removal of debris associated with the structure removal In accordance with the District's Construction and Waste Diversion Policy, the contractor shall prepare and submit to the District a waste -stream diversion plan (WSDP). The WSDP shall describe how all non -hazardous demolished materials will be handled, list all items to be salvaged and where they will be transported to, and list all materials that will be sent to the landfill with an explanation of why they cannot be recycled or salvaged. The WSDP will be reviewed by District staff and Knapp Architects prior to demolition. Knapp Architects are on the consultant design team for the Project, specialize in historic preservation, and prepared the Alma College Conditions Assessment Report for the District in 2010. Furniture, such as the lockers and a stainless -steel counter in the classroom, will be included in the WSDP to evaluate for potential salvage. R-20-21 Page 4 Contractor Selection A Request for Bids (RFB) was issued on January 8, 2020 via BidSync and released to three builders' exchanges. Legal notices were posted in the San Jose Mercury News, the San Mateo County Times, and the Santa Cruz Sentinel, and a link to the solicitation was posted on the District website. Mandatory pre -bid site walks were held on January 17, 2020 and January 21, 2020 with 16 total contractors in attendance. The District publicly opened the bids on February 5, 2020 and announced Coastwide Environmental Technologies, Inc. (Coastwide) as the apparent low bidder. The detailed breakdown of the (4) bids received is as follows: Bidder Location Total Base Bid Percent +1- from Engineer's Estimate ($450,000) 1. Bowen Engineering and Environmental Fresno, CA $778,500 +73% 2. Coastwide Environmental Tech, Inc. Watsonville, CA $402,000 -11% 3. Evans Brothers, Inc. Livermore, CA $743,400 +65% 3. Resource Environmental, Inc. Long Beach, CA $407,000 -10% A bid protest was submitted to the District by Resource Environmental, Inc. (Resource) on February 12, 2020. Resource contended that Coastwide's bid should be rejected as non- responsive and the Project should be awarded to Resource, the second lowest bidder. The District followed its bid protest procedures set forth in the Instructions to Bidders. The District reviewed the bid protest and found there were minor irregularities in Coastwide's bid. First, Coastwide did not attach separate copies of the signed Addendum Numbers 1 and 2 to their bid. However, their bid expressly acknowledged receipt of both addenda on the Bid Proposal Form as required by the bid documents, and the Bid Proposal Form was signed. Additionally, on the Bid Proposal Form, Coastwide listed a dash to indicate no charge for the line item for the Hazardous Materials Health and Safety Plan. If awarded the contract, Coastwide will provide the Hazardous Materials Safety Plan for no charge to the District and the inclusion of a dash on the Bid Form did not affect the bid price. Finally, Coastwide did not include a corporate resolution conferring authority to its signer. The District verified on the California Secretary of State's website that Coastwide's signer is an authorized officer of Coastwide. Coastwide has since submitted a resolution evidencing that their signer is the CEO and has signing authority. None of the above items affected price and terms or conferred any unfair advantage to Coastwide; therefore, they may be waived under California law. Upon review of the Bid Proposals, bid protest, and confirmation of the contractors' qualifications, the General Manager recommends awarding the contract to Coastwide Environmental Tech, Inc., as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. R-20-21 Page 5 FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal year (FY) 2019-20 adopted budget includes $945,854 for the Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project MAA21-006. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action and expenditures. Bear Creek Redwoods - Alma College Cleanup and Stabilization MAA21-006 Prior Year Actuals FY2019-20 Adopted FY2020-21 Projected FY2021-22 Projected TOTAL Budget $1,025,218 $945,854 $3,360,200 $0 $5,331,272 Spent -to -Date (as of 01/30/2020): ($1,025,218) ($70,775) $0 $0 ($1,095,993) Encumbrances: $0 ($60,688) $0 $0 ($60,688) Coastwide Environmental Tech, Inc. Contract: $0 ($402,000) $0 $0 ($402,000) 15% Contingency: $0 ($60,300) $0 $0 ($60,300) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $352,091 $3,360,200 $0 $3,712,291 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #21 MAA21 Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects allocation, costs -to -date, and the fiscal impact related to the Bear Creek Redwoods - Alma College Cleanup and Stabilization MAA21-006 project. MAA21 Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects Portfolio Allocation: $17,478,000 Life -to -Date Spent (as of 01/30/2020): ($8,951,222) Encumbrances: ($915,297) Coastwide Environmental Tech, Inc. Contract including 15% contingency: ($462,300) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $7,149,181 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW Rehabilitation of the Alma site was guided by committee and public input at three meetings of the Planning and Natural Resources Committee, including one neighborhood meeting, held in Los Gatos on April 29, 2015. In addition, the full Board received a presentation of the Rehabilitation Plan at its June 24, 2015 meeting (R-15-92) and reviewed the information on March 23, 2016 (R-16-33) and May 11, 2016 (R-16-50). The Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan was approved by the Board as part of the larger Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan on January 25, 2017 (R-17-15). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE The Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan, including structure removal, hazardous material abatement, and bat deterrence was included in the Draft and Final EIR completed for the Preserve Plan, which was certified by the Board at the January 25, 2017 meeting (R-17-15). R-20-21 Page 6 NEXT STEPS If approved, the General Manager will enter into a contract with Coastwide Environmental Tech, Inc. Final contract signature is subject to meeting all District requirements, such as having all required insurance and bonding in place. The bat deterrence and exclusions will be completed by April 14, 2020, and the structure removal and abatement will be complete by June 2020. Attachment 1. Project Site Map 2. Work Area Map Responsible Department Head: Jason Lin, PE, Engineering and Construction Department Manager Prepared by: Leigh Guggemos, Capital Project Manager III, Engineering and Construction Department RFP 7n1ROO11 mxe-1 c c c C E E f71cc c c U x •c c Attachment 1 - Alma Demolition and Abatement Project Site Map Existing Paved Road Existing Unpaved Road - - - - Existing Trail ==== Existing Unmaintained Road OO Gate Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) March 2018 Miles 0 0.125 0.25 While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Ml DPENINSII'LA REG1ONR4 OPEN SPACE E 0 L rc a (_,--j, o..a...,---h\ 0 T Z L Attachment 2 - Alma Demolition and Abatement Project Work Area Map • • , • • 1 1 � 1 . 1 t .• � I • • • I Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve To be Stablized (N.I.C.) To be Partially Demolished & Interpreted Existing Trail Unpaved Seasonal Road Maintenance / Construction Access Road Do mitory Classroom U Shed 1950 N Library Designated Bat Habitat To Receive Bat Deterrence/Exclusion 934 Libr ry Chapel Area of Work Paved Road Existing Parking Area N.I.C. Not in Contract ion Ruins (N.I.C.)/ Carport (N.I.C.) Feet 0 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) February 2019 150 300 MIIPENINSULA g10101IAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent o legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-20-09 Meeting 20-04 February 26, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan and Grazing Lease in Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve a Resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2. Adopt the Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan. 3. Amend the Toto Ranch Preliminary Use & Management Plan to reflect the adoption of the Rangeland Management Plan. 4. Approve a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to enter into a new, five-year conservation grazing lease with an option for a five-year extension at Toto Ranch with Erik and Doniga Markegard. SUMMARY In support of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's (District) Coastside mission of protecting and restoring the natural environment, preserving rural character, and encouraging viable agricultural use of land resources, the General Manager recommends entering into a new grazing lease with Erik and Doniga Markegard that implements the proposed rangeland management plan (RMP) for the Toto Ranch area of Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. The proposed lease is for a term of five years with a five-year option to extend. The RMP sets specific grazing parameters and prescriptions to meet the District's conservation grazing program goals for maintaining and enhancing the biodiversity of threaten grassland habitat, managing vegetation fuel for fire protection, and supporting local agricultural uses. The RMP (Attachment 1) documents existing resources and current uses on the property, and includes recommendations for access roads improvements, additional water infrastructure, fencing, brush encroachment management, and annual monitoring to ensure that conservation goals are met. The proposed RMP and associated environmental documents include comments received from the Lessee, San Mateo County Farm Bureau, and Planning and Natural Resource Committee. BACKGROUND In the late 1990s, coastal residents expressed their support for extending the District's boundaries to include the San Mateo County Coast, where development was beginning to threaten the area's Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-09 Page 2 rural character and agricultural heritage. When District boundaries expanded in 2004, a commitment to preserve agricultural land and rural character, and encourage viable agricultural use of land resources was made to the Coastside community and embedded in the District's Coastside mission statement: To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. To date, the District has protected more than 11,000 acres of open space and agricultural land on the San Mateo County Coast, including more than 40 percent of San Mateo County's ranchlands. The District has invested more than $16 million in land preservation, environmental restoration, and ecologically sensitive public recreation on these preserved coastal properties. Coastal grasslands are one of the most biodiverse and threatened ecosystems in North America, and in many cases depend on regular disturbances like grazing or fire to prevent encroachment by introduced species, shrubs, and forest. These disturbances were historically provided by wildlife herds and Native American burning practices. Conservation grazing is distinguished from basic livestock production in that the primary purpose for the use of livestock is to further the conservation goals of protecting and increasing grassland habitat biodiversity, including important pollinators. To accomplish these goals, a Rangeland Management Plan is customized for each grazing site that sets specific management parameters, such as stocking rates, class of livestock, seasonality, and duration of grazing activity. The District uses conservation grazing as a critical tool for managing approximately 8,000 acres of coastal grasslands for ecological health, biodiversity, and wildland fire safety. The District's Conservation Grazing Program is a mutually beneficial partnership with small-scale local ranchers on the San Mateo County Coast to accomplish multiple goals aligned with the District's mission. The District purchased Toto Ranch from Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) in 2012. Pursuant to District policy to retain the existing grazing tenant when feasible, the District assumed POST's grazing lease with Erik and Doniga Markegard (Lessee) (R-12-109). The 953 -acre property is located 9 miles south of Half Moon Bay and extends eastward from Highway 1 into the coastal hills (Attachment 2). The property includes approximately 941 acres of rangelands (Attachment 3) and an agricultural area. These grasslands have been actively managed with grazing for over 120 years; the grasslands continue to support good examples of native coastal plant communities. The site is currently managed primarily with year-round rotational cattle grazing run by the Lessee. The RMP is customized and specific to the property's rangeland characteristics and provides management guidance for resources unique to the property. The RMP provides important depth, detail, and clarification to the existing preliminary use and management plan (PUMP). The proposed five-year Lease, with an option to extend for another five-year term, requires Lessee compliance with the RMP. R-20-09 Page 3 Use of other areas of the property, such as the agricultural area, which is referenced in the RMP, will be managed by a license agreement that is currently being negotiated with the Lessee and is expected to be completed in summer 2020. The District held numerous discussions with the Lessee throughout the preparation of the RMP. The RMP recommends continued year-round rotational grazing with stocking rates ranging from 365.4 Animal Unit Months (AUMs, equivalent to 31 cows year-round) to 957.6 AUMs (80 cows year-round), depending on annual forage production, which is determined by a Rangeland Ecologist and is based on annual monitoring of residual dry matter (RDM) and periodic monitoring of forage status during the growing season. In addition to cattle, the RMP provides specific guidelines for limited grazing of rangeland areas by horses in pastures 1, 2, and 3 during the dry season, and calls for monitoring of these areas to determine if changes are required to maintain conservation goals. The Lessee would pay the cost of monitoring horse grazing on the rangeland areas. Horse use outside of pastures 1, 2, and 3 during the dry season is limited to the Agricultural Area, which will be covered as part of a separate license agreement as described above. DISCUSSION With an emphasis on protecting both the unique biological resources and agricultural heritage of the site, the RMP is well -aligned with the District's overall mission, Grazing Management Policy, and the Coastal Service Plan. To successfully employ conservation grazing as a tool to accomplish the District's grassland conservation goals, the RMP identifies various site improvements, resource management projects, and sets specific stocking rates and monitoring protocols to measure the effectiveness of grazing and its effects on grassland habitats. Key components of the RMP are discussed in more detail below. Improvements to Infrastructure To optimize effective use of conservation grazing as a management tool for the rangelands at Toto Ranch, the RMP recommends several infrastructure improvements (Attachment 4). The use of grazing animals to help manage natural resources would benefit from ranch road work, fencing, and water source development to manage the distribution of livestock. • Roads: Most roads at Toto are generally in good condition. However, some repairs are recommended for improved resource management (RMP, page 46; and Attachment 5). Two of the unpaved roads currently have significant gullies and rutting. The RMP recommends maintenance on these areas to sustain road functionality and minimize sedimentation from road erosion. In a third location, installation of a culvert is recommended to maintain road access and protect surface waters. The RMP also notes that resurfacing the paved primary access road may also be desirable to accommodate the high volume of traffic associated with ongoing agricultural business activities and potential future recreational use. Driveway improvements are scheduled for the Fiscal Year 2020-21 • Fencing: The RMP recommends repairs and updates to the existing fencing system that meet the District's standard wildlife -friendly fencing specifications. The west boundary fence, which was identified as a priority for replacement in the RMP, was replaced in fall of 2019. The south boundary fence is deteriorating and recommended for replacement to keep grazing animals securely contained. Approximately 2 miles of new fencing are proposed within the ranch to improve the management of livestock movement and R-20-09 Page 4 rangeland use (RMP, page 46 Attachment 4). The RMP also identifies partial fencing of certain ponds to manage habitat for sensitive aquatic species such as California red - legged frogs (confirmed) and San Francisco garter snakes (potential). • Water Resources: The availability of clean and reliable water is essential to the function of the conservation grazing program. Having well -distributed water sources helps disperse the influence of livestock on the landscape and reduces impacts on streams and seeps. The RMP recommends replacing the plastic water troughs in and around the Agricultural Area, installing a new waterline and trough north of the Agricultural Area, and improving the Pasture 4 water system, including the spring, pump, tank, pipe and troughs (RMP, page 47 and Attachment 4). Proposed Brush Control Grassland habitat on Toto Ranch is experiencing extensive brush encroachment. The RMP documents that the acreage of open grassland habitat has been reduced lowering the area of grassland habitat and reducing rangeland productivity by an estimated 50-80% due to the encroachment of coyote brush. Coyote brush is a native plant, but it is invasive in coastal grasslands without a regular disturbance regime and threatens the diversity of other native plants and animals. Consequently, the RMP calls for management of encroaching coyote brush in many parts of the property. Management of brush encroachment is important for protecting the unique biodiversity associated with coastal grasslands (important breeding, foraging habitat for numerous sensitive species) and also for sustaining rangeland productivity which supports conservation grazing. The District has worked with a consultant to develop a brush management plan for Toto Ranch that is consistent with the District's Board -approved Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program. Per the procedures outlined in the IPM Program, the brush management plan for Toto Ranch has been reviewed and finalized by the IPM coordination team. The plan will be implemented cooperatively between the tenants, District staff, and contractors as needed, focusing on priority areas identified in the plan. All work completed will be reported back to the Board during the Annual IPM Report. Monitoring To assess the effectiveness of the resource management activities and inform adaptive management at Toto Ranch, the RMP recommends an ongoing monitoring program. The RMP specifies protocols for monitoring residual dry matter (RDM) as a broad indicator of range health and establishing photo -monitoring points to help assess landscape level changes in response to management. In addition to these methods for broad assessment, more intensive monitoring protocols may be used in association with specific projects. For example, areas approved for limited horse grazing will have a separate monitoring protocol to assess plant community responses to horse use. Implementation of the brush management plan will also have its own monitoring protocol that complies with the IPM Program. This information will help staff adjust resource management activities to ensure that use of Toto Ranch meets conservation grazing goals to protect natural resources and manage grasslands. USE AND MANAGEMENT In 2012 the Board adopted a Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP) for the Toto Ranch property acquisition (Attachment 6) (R-12-109). The PUMP called for the development of an RMP to guide conservation grazing activities on the property. An amendment to the PUMP is needed to incorporate the RMP and other documents or programs developed since the adoption R-20-09 Page 5 of the PUMP, including the IPM Program as well as the ongoing development of the proposed Wildland Fire Resiliency Program. The recommended PUMP amendments include updated language to better address the management of natural resources, and to incorporate new applicable sections from the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program. The amended PUMP will remain in effect until any future amendments, or a Comprehensive Use and Management Plan or Preserve Plan is brought to the Board for consideration of approval. Amendments to the PUMP are shown in tracked changes as follows: Name Public Access: Temporarily d Designate the POST (Toto Ranch) property as part of the Gordon Ridge Area of the Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. Refer the property to the Board's Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee for permanent naming. Designate the property as closed to general public use. Allow public access through Ranch Days, workshops, and ranch visitation conducted by the tenant consistent with historical use patterns, subject to case -by -case District permit requirements. Allow docent -led hikes after evaluating the compatibility of limited public access in light of existing on -site factors, including conservation grazing, natural resources, temporary parking/staging needs, and road and trail conditions. Signs and Site Install private property (for neighboring lands), closed area, and preserve Security: boundary signs where appropriate. Structures and Rent the residential structures under month -to -month residential rental Improvements: agreements. Evaluate the feasibility and/or desirability of alternative longer - term residential occupancy arrangements and return to the Board for review and approval. Water Rights and Water Resources Evaluate the historic integrity of the ranch house. Maintain the residence in a habitable condition. Maintain the existing water system that provides domestic; irrigation, and stock watering in serviceable condition. Maintain and restore water systems and water resources as designated by the Rangeland Management Plan. Obtain stockpond registration (a type of water right) for pond TCO2. Resource Conduct plant and animal management activities consistent with the District's Management: adopted Resource Management Policies including Integrated Pest Management Policies as needed. Conduct a detailed resource assessment of the property, covering such topics as vegetation management, special status species, ponds, and sedimentation. Use conservation grazing as a vegetation management tool to reduce invasive weeds and encourage native grasses species within the property's grasslands, as part of overall rangeland management methods. Conduct other interim invasive plant and animal management activities consistent with the District's policies and practices. R-20-09 Page 6 Rangeland Manage grazing under the Rangeland Management Plan. Continue grazing Management: under the existing grazing lease being assigned to the District. Upon preparation of a Rangeland Management Plan and before lease expiration, enter into Maintain a long-term conservation grazing lease in accordance with the District's Coastside Service Plan, the District's Grazing Management Policy, the District's Integrated Pest Management Program and the Rangeland Management Plan. Collaborate with tenants on obtaining and administering grants on rangeland and resource enhancements_, as well as exploring the feasibility of alternative methods of brush management. After public review and comment in accordance with the Farm Bureau Memorandum Of Understanding and Coastside Protection Plan, present the long term grazing lease and Rangeland Management Plan for future review and approval by the District Board of Directors. Conservation Use and manage the property consistent with the existing Conservation Easement: Easement. Coordinate with the easement holder regarding any proposed physical alterations to the property prior to implementation, so that they may assess consistency with easement provisions. Patrol: Routinely patrol the property using existing ranch roads and patrol easements. Wildfire Fuel Conduct conservation grazing, as noted above, as well as other standard District - Management: wide fuel management practices in accordance with the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program. Further assess plant communities on the property to determine wildfire management needs and consult with San Mateo County and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in developing a site specific fuel modification and management program as part of the subsequent planning process. Fences and Gates: Roads and Trails: Coastside Service Plan: Working with the tenant, e Ensure that existing perimeter gates and fences are maintained and repaired as necessary to prevent livestock movement onto adjacent private property or onto Highway 1. Install new fencing in accordance with the existing EQIP grant scope. Install new gates as necessary to prevent unauthorized vehicular entry at the property. Monitor interior fence installation by tenant under the EQIP grant, and evaluate Implement additional fencing/gates consistent with part of developing the long term the Rangeland Management Plan. Maintain existing roads to the ranch house compound in serviceable, year-round condition, and maintain the remaining existing roads for seasonal use. Implement maintenance and minor erosion and sediment control measures for access roads in accordance with District and Service Plan standards. Prepare a road and trail inventory of the entire property consistent with Service Plan requirements. Operate and manage the property in conformity with the provisions of the Service Plan for the Coastside Protection Program and the mitigation measures adopted pursuant to the Coastside Service Plan Environmental Impact Report. Site Safety Conduct routine site safety inspections and work with tenant to address any site Inspection: safety maintenance or repairs. No evidence of any recognized hazardous condition has been found on the property. As with every situation involving older structures and past agricultural use, perform a thoughtful analysis of the R-20-09 Page 7 specific working conditions before conducting all future maintenance and POST Site Naming: Williamson Act: Dedication: San Mateo County Local Coastal Program Subsequent Planning: For a limited period and in accordance with the District's "Policies for Site Naming and Gift Recognition", allow POST to recognize significant donors through the naming of a single, specific location, land formation, trail, or other natural feature on the property. Comply with the existing Williamson Act contract during the nonrenewal period. Withhold dedication of the property as open space at this time. The Property is within the San Mateo County Coastal Zone. Consult with San Mateo County Planning on all subsequent actions to ensure compliance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Coastal Development (CD) permitting requirements. Future public access planning for the Property will include consultation with appropriate agencies and organizations. The planning process will include consultation with the San Mateo County Farm Bureau and the tenant, public workshops to gather input, and public hearings to review draft and final plans. When preferred long-term uses are identified, the District will complete the necessary environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at that time. As indicated under Structures and Improvements above, evaluate the possibility of entering into a long term residential arrangement. Develop a long term plan for the property, including more detailed plans for d .,n trai F� ,mod ��ro 0 0 0���„ o ��r ao on wildland fuel and fire management. Since the property is within the Coastside Protection Area and is subject to the Service Plan, the process for developing a long term plan involves conducting more detailed resource assessments to inform resource management, range management, and public access plans, including consultation with appropriate government officials, agencies and organizations, and an extensive public input process. Long -Term Grazing Lease As part of the management of conservation grazing leases, District staff consider factors such as those listed below in order to evaluate the Lessee's performance: • Rent paid on time • Stays within the acceptable range for Residual Dry Matter as prescribed in Rangeland/Grazing Management Plan and lease • Follows stocking rate guidelines • Completes or makes progress on annual work plans • Refrains from performing unauthorized work • Works cooperatively with District staff to attain resource management goals • Meets District, local, state, or federal laws, regulations and/or policies • Follows good animal husbandry practices • Accommodates public use of property (this property is closed to public use at this time) R-20-09 Page 8 The General Manager is recommending approving a Resolution (Attachment 7) authorizing the General Manager to enter into a new, five-year conservation grazing lease with an option for a five-year extension at Toto Ranch with Erik and Doniga Markegard. District staff evaluated the Lessee on the factors listed above. and the Lessee has satisfactorily met the District's resource management goals with respect to Toto Ranch and is considered in good standing. The Lessee has reviewed and agrees with the terms. A five-year lease with an option to extend for five years is the standard District grazing lease term and gives the lessee a long term commitment on which the lessee can base business decisions and provides the District with consistent management and the option to end the lease after five years if the tenant is not in good standing. FISCAL IMPACT The RMP and related CEQA document were prepared with the funds in the adopted fiscal year FY2019-20 budget. The RMP specifies several recommended improvements to infrastructure related to roads, fencing and water. Funding for these activities will be requested in future fiscal years as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. Over the last two grazing seasons, this Lease has provided an average annual grazing rent per season of $4,695.00. The Lessee will continue to pay an annual grazing rent to the District estimated at $5,000.00 per year. Annual grazing rent can vary depending upon the average selling price of beef cattle as well as the quantity and age of the conservation cattle grazing on the property. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW On January 22, 2019, the Planning and Natural Resources Committee reviewed the draft RMP and recommended full Board approval with the caveat that if significant changes are identified through the public outreach process, staff should return to the Committee to review the item before it is brought to the full Board. Only minor changes were made to the RMP. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public Notice was sent to the conservation grazing interested parties list, the Lessee, and posted on the District's webpage. CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description The Project includes implementation of the Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan and supporting infrastructure improvements and management practices throughout the 953 -acre Toto Ranch. Proposed activities include practices to guide grazing, fence and gate installation and/or repairs, road repairs and maintenance, water infrastructure improvements, pond management, avoidance and minimization measures, and monitoring and adaptive management. See Attachment 8 and 9 for IS/MND and MMP respectively. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Preparation In 2018, the District retained the consulting firm Harris and Associates to conduct an environmental analysis of the Project, consisting of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative R-20-09 Page 9 Declaration ("MND"), pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regulations sections 15000 et seq.). Public Review Period and Availability On October 11, 2019, the District released a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND, notifying the public that the MND would be circulated for public review for a period of 30 days, commencing on October 11, 2019 and ending on November 12, 2019. The District sent the NOI to adjacent properties and contacts on the District's interested parties lists for conservation grazing and Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. The NOI was also posted at the County of San Mateo's Clerk Recorder's Office and on the District's website, as well as distributed to the California Office of Planning and Research's State Clearinghouse. Copies of the full MND were available on the District's website, at the District's Administrative Office at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022, at the County of San Mateo's Clerk Recorder's Office at 555 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, and through the State Clearinghouse. Printed copies were available upon request. During the 30 -day public review period, the District received no comments on the MND. CEQA Determination The Project with mitigation measures incorporated will not have a significant effect on the environment, including Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Resources (see Attachment 8 & 9). The attached Resolution makes specific findings regarding the environmental review and incorporation of mitigation measures (See Attachment 10). Mitigation Monitoring Program In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the District has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), which describes the project -specific mitigation measures and monitoring process (Attachment 9). The District will require that its staff, and the tenant, incorporate and follow the MMP during all construction and maintenance activities set forth in the RMP. NEXT STEPS If the Board approves the General Manager's recommendations, staff will file a Notice of Determination with the San Mateo County Clerk and direct staff to implement the RMP. Staff will work with the Lessee to implement components of the RMP and associated environmental mitigation measures. Additionally, the General Manager will execute a five-year lease with an option to extend for five additional years in the District's sole discretion with Erik and Doniga Markegard provided that they have met all District requirements, including appropriate evidence of insurance coverage. Attachments 1. Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan 2. Toto Ranch Map (regional setting and boundaries) 3. Toto Ranch Grazing Lease Area 4. Proposed Improvements to Infrastructure Map R-20-09 Page 10 5. Road Repairs Map 6. Board Report R-12-109 containing Preliminary Use and Management Plan for Toto Ranch 7. Resolution Approving Award of Toto Ranch Grazing Lease to Erik and Doniga Markegard 8. Toto Ranch Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 9. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 10. Resolution Approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan 1 1. Public Comments received Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resource Department Michael Jurich, Land & Facilities Service Department Prepared by: Lewis Reed, Rangeland Ecologist/Botanist, Natural Resource Department Elaina Cuzick, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land & Facilities Services Department Aaron Peth, Planner III, Planning Department Contact persons: Lewis Reed, Rangeland Ecologist/Botanist, Natural Resource Department Omar Smith, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land & Facilities Services Depattiiient Graphics prepared by: Francisco Lopez, GIS Technician Attachment 1 Toto Ranch Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan PREPARED FOR: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 (650) 691-1200 PREPARED BY: Clayton Koopmann, California Certified Rangeland Manager (CRM) #M-100 Koopmann Rangeland Consulting July 2018 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos CA 94022 (650) 691-1200 www.openSpace.org Attachment 1 CONTENTS I. Property Summary Information Easement Summary Information Page 3 II. Executive Summary Introduction and Background Page 4 III. Purpose of Rangeland Management Plan Introduction and Background Page 6 IV. Goals & Objectives of RMP Goals and Objectives Page 6 V. Existing Resources and Infrastructure Land Use Information Page 10 Improvements Page 12 Soil Description Page 13 Vegetation Descriptions Page 18 Water Sources Page 21 Wildlife Page 23 Existing Agricultural Infrastructure Page 24 Rangeland Condition Page 29 VI. Capacity for Conducting Agricultural Uses Grazing Capacity Estimate Page 31 Dairy Capacity Page 33 Additional Livestock, Equine, and Poultry Capacity Page 33 Field Crop Capacity Page 34 11 Page Rangeland Management Plan - Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 VII. Management Recommendations & BMPs Rangeland Livestock Operations Page 35 Pathogen Reduction & Risk Management Page 40 Special Status Species Management Page 41 Invasive Plant Control Page 44 Additional Small Livestock Production Page 46 VIII. Improvements & Maintenance Recommendations Fence Repair and Installation Page 46 Road Repairs and Maintenance Page 47 Water Infrastructure Improvements Page 47 Vegetation Management Page 47 IX. Recommended Monitoring Protocols Monitoring Page 50 References References Page 55 Certification CRM (Plan Preparer) Certification Page 56 Attachments: Attachment - A Stock Photos of Toto Ranch, 2017 Attachment - B Guidelines for RDM Monitoring, UC ANR Attachment - C Vegetation Composition Species List (Observed) Attachment - D CRLF Management Recommendations for Toto Ranch 21 Page Rangeland Management Plan - Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 I. PROPERTY SUMMARY INFORMATION: Owner(s): Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Contact Person: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Natural Resources Department Phone Number: (650) 691-1200 Property Address: 20800 Cabrillo Highway S. Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Mailing Address: 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Date of Property Acquisition: November 30, 2012 Conservation Easement: 2007 Easement Holder: Coastside Land Trust; Reassigned to Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) upon acquisition by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) in 2012. Assessor's Parcel # And Acreage: 081-060-101; 081-060-100; 081-060-110; 081-060-120 / 952A9 acres Major watershed: Tunitas Creek Type of land use: Livestock grazing/Residential/Agriculture Zoning: Location Description: PAD, Planned Agricultural District Toto Ranch is located on the east side of Highway 1 in unincorporated San Mateo County, approximately 9 miles south of Half Moon Bay and 1 mile north of the town of San Gregorio. Toto Ranch is adjacent to State Highway 1 and is bordered to the north by Tunitas Creek. Private grazed rangelands are present to the south and east of Toto Ranch. Toto Ranch is accessed via a paved/gravel driveway off Highway 1. 31Pagc Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Rangeland Management Plan (RMP) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & HISTORY: The Toto Ranch property (Ranch) is located within the San Mateo County Coastside Protection Area in unincorporated San Mateo County approximately 9 miles south of the town of Half Moon Bay, California (Exhibit -A). The Ranch is comprised of four (4) assessor's parcel numbers totaling 952.49 acres located to the east of and adjacent to State Highway 1 and bordered to the north by Tunitas Creek and Dry Creek. The Ranch is north-northwest facing and topography primarily ranges from gently rolling to moderately steep slopes with two steep canyons that run south - north into the Tunitas Creek stream corridor. The level to gently rolling areas of the Ranch support annual grasslands and coastal scrub habitat with heavy coyote brush encroachment. The steeper canyon areas are comprised of dense brush and riparian corridors. Eucalyptus trees and Monterey Cyprus are present in the farmyard area as well as a large, dense, eucalyptus stand east of the Agricultural Lease. Elevation ranges from 20 feet near Tunitas Creek in the northwest corner to 885 feet on the ridge top along the south border. Historically the Ranch was used for production agriculture, with active row crop farming on the swales and ridge tops during the mid -1900's. Presently the Ranch is used primarily for cattle grazing. The existing tenant resides on the property and grazes beef cattle year-round on the grassland portion of the Ranch. In addition to cattle grazing, the tenant raises a variety of domestic livestock including horses, chickens, pigs, goats, sheep, alpacas, and milk cows in the Agricultural Lease area located near the center of the property. Livestock infrastructure includes adequate perimeter fence, livestock water troughs, a functional corral/processing facility, and "cow tight" interior pasture fencing. Water troughs around the Agricultural Lease area and front pastures are fed via a windmill powered well and residential water is provided via a natural spring just south of the Agricultural Lease. Two perennial stockponds, multiple springs, and ten (10) seasonal ponds/catchments are located throughout the Ranch providing water for livestock and valuable habitat for wildlife. The Ranch drains south to north into Dry Creek and Tunitas Creek, totaling approximately 9,000 feet of perennial stream frontage. Tunitas Creek is a direct tributary to the Pacific Ocean. OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT GOALS: Toto Ranch was acquired by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) in 2012 with an agricultural conservation easement (Easement) in place covering the entire property. Midpen's conservation grazing goals are to manage District land utilizing livestock grazing that is protective of natural resources and compatible with public access; to maintain and enhance the diversity of native plant and animal communities; manage vegetation fuel for fire protection; help sustain the local agricultural economy, and preserve and foster appreciation for the region's rural agricultural heritage. In order to achieve the goals of the conservation grazing program, this 4I Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 Rangeland Management Plan (RMP) will provide a framework around which resource managers, land managers, and grazing tenants can make rangeland management decisions on the Ranch with adaptive management changes. As stipulated in this RMP, conservation management practices are to be implemented by Midpen and the grazing lessee for all grazing areas of the Ranch, and applied specifically to livestock grazing operations and rangeland management. Conservation management practices include but are not limited to; maintenance and construction of livestock water developments (including onsite ponds), livestock fencing and corrals, ranch roads, and vegetation management to protect and enhance habitat for wildlife, native flora, and water quality and fire protection. Shrubland and forest areas that are not suitable for livestock grazing provide valuable wildlife habitat and should be managed to protect and enhance habitat value and connectivity for wildlife migration. MANAGEMENT RECOMENDATIONS & RESPONSIBILITIES: The Ranch should be operated by one lessee with a multi -year grazing lease. Conservation grazing using cattle should continue on rangeland portions of the Ranch outside of the Agricultural Lease area. Cattle loading/off-loading and processing should occur in the corral located within the Agricultural Lease area. All domestic livestock production including horses, goats, chickens, pigs, turkeys, etc. should be confined to the Agricultural Lease area. Seven (7) horses can be used for cattle operations in rangeland. A separate lease will be prepared for the Agricultural Lease portion of the ranch. The Ranch should be grazed year round, dependent upon available forage and livestock water, with cattle rotated between the five (5) existing pastures. If available forage and/or stock water is not adequate to support grazing livestock, cattle should temporarily be removed from the Ranch or grazing restricted to seasonal use. Water use shall be prioritized for cattle grazing the rangeland pastures under the conservation grazing program with secondary water use applied to domestic livestock within the Agricultural Lease area. The estimated stocking rate for an average forage production year is 632.0 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) or 53.0 animal units year round, but would significantly increase with a reduction in coyote brush in the grasslands. Stocking rates for the Ranch will vary annually based on available forage and water and should be adjusted accordingly to accommodate available resources. The monitoring program for grazed Midpen land must ensure that specified rangeland uses are in compliance with the applicable land use regulations and the land stewardship goals, objectives, and implementing guidelines. Midpen staff will use rangeland/habitat health checklists and photo point monitoring forms to monitor grasslands annually in the fall prior to rainfall. 51 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 III. Purpose of Rangeland Management Plan The purpose of this RMP is to provide a framework for resource managers, land managers, and grazing tenants to make rangeland management decisions on the Ranch resulting in adaptive management changes to grazing practices, as needed (e.g. stocking rate reduction due to drought). The RMP addresses appropriate rangeland management practices for soil and water conservation, erosion control, pest management, nutrient management, water quality, and habitat protection on the Ranch. This RMP should be reviewed at least every 10 years, or sooner, and updated in the event of significant changes in land use or management practices, or a change in ownership. An updated RMP may expand the specific plan for the conduct of commercial agricultural uses to include activities that are not currently being conducted on the Toto Ranch, but that are consistent with the Easement and resource management policies of Midpen. IV. Goals and Objectives of RMP The goals and objectives of the Rangeland Management Plan are to: A. Describe appropriate historic, current, and potential future agricultural uses. B. Inventory existing agricultural resources, including soils, water sources, grassland vegetation, forage quality and production, croplands, and infrastructure. C. Determine capacity for conducting viable agricultural uses. D. Establish provisions for minimizing erosion and transport of potential pollutants into creeks. E. Provide a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for climate related impacts, grazing standards, invasive species management, water resources and conservation. F. Provide specific guidance for the conduct of agricultural uses that complies with the restrictions contained in the Easement. The plan will include, as appropriate, Animal Unit Equivalents (AUE), ranch forage production estimates, available forage, crop production estimates, and capacity for any other agricultural uses described in the RMP. 61 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 The Coastal Annexation Area Mission Statement of Midpen is [1]: "To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. The District will accomplish this mission as a cooperative endeavor with public agencies, non-profit organizations, and individuals with similar goals." In the spirit of the Mission Statement, in September 2006 Midpen formulated Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures for potential areas of grazing land within the District GOAL: Manage District land with livestock grazing that is compatible with public access, to maintain and enhance the diversity of native plant and animal communities, manage vegetation fuel for fire protection, sustain the local agricultural economy, and preserve and foster appreciation for the region's rural agricultural heritage. GRAZING MANAGEMENT POLICIES: Policy GM -1: Policy GM -2: Policy GM -3: Policy GM -4: Policy GM -5: Policy GM -6: Policy GM -7: Policy GM -8: Ensure that grazing is compatible with and supports wildlife and wildlife habitats. Provide necessary infrastructure to support and improve grazing management where appropriate. Monitor environmental response to grazing on District lands. Utilize different livestock species to accomplish vegetation management objectives. Preserve and foster existing and potential grazing operations to help sustain the local agricultural economy. Provide information to the public about the region's rural agricultural heritage. Provide public access in a manner that minimizes impacts on the grazing operation. Grazing operations on District lands in the Coastside Protection Area will be managed in accordance with the policies established in the Service Plan for the San Mateo County Coastal Annexation Area. 71 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ran( , �-` _ ti .:t.. PUR15IMA CREE i „ REDWO ODS OS' i �:-.. -. p EL CORT ' --- DE MADER — . CREEK OS 'U N ITAS f' t E EK O r .''� 14 r + '� f ,. San :4 Daly i• t�a: ss. rte, - . .r: \ -0 1r t=>. 3 T lr ` 4 �t }�il iii 1.4. C klond '' L ,1 San gran City &'' ''"' "'''' ''a V Hayxcird S aa Frem ont a oyab - z,y P"Pab Lt,,;iole san Josue Ar ea oil `--"' ti '1f ' f`' ( I. r q Detait - .r 1 J . Cr. � •>_ ` 1, y ;I .. ' WINDY � cl 1 N .) �, �r ,. ,z - Toto Ranch Tuniias Creek COP ILL OSP • •-` - - -- 1 } + j X' i t / 81 Page .8 ' ti. . li f L -.r LA HONDA �_. . 's � �. . - '-__ ; ,, ,'.... .•-./.- i l r � CREEK OSP es t_ _, • ►' —_ +-.-_ MONTE +► LV ,' 'LikELLO OSP ARLISSIAN 1 f @ ( ` -<:__ RIDGE O S P ' - SKYLINE f _ r _' � RIDGE OSP • lif r I - Toto Ranch - Re gional Location Map Midp eninsula R egional Open Space Sp aee DisBc) MROSD Pre se rve s 'Wate rshed Land Tuf.s Ranc h (MROSJJf O ther Protec ted. Lands Land Trust August 2017 Ie s PEN Priv ate Pro perty Other Public Agenc y 0 q 2 ,4 5 PAC E Wale lila Di sisal strive s la am ljpmb cv._.: . - : :..:. ... ,a sa cat Ga nal -mama, .:' :. in'ey cre m massy a.,ysaph Mam as. alsi:ian al ga caranal c Ma ns- 'r ivawqueuay Midpeninsu[a . Regi onal Op en Space District (MROSD/ August 2017 Attachment 1 V. Existing Resources and Infrastructure: Agricultural resources include elements necessary to continue agricultural uses on the Toto Ranch. These include appropriate soils, sufficient water, adequate forage, and supporting infrastructure. These agricultural resources are described below to establish the fact that the Toto Ranch is capable, at a minimum, of sustaining the current agricultural uses and that it has the potential to sustain additional agricultural uses supported by the agricultural resources. LAND USE INFORMATION HISTORIC LAND USE: The property was originally owned by Alexander Gordon, a State assembly member, who in 1872 built Gordon's Chute near the mouth of Tunitas Creek, an ill-fated ramp for sliding farm goods from the top of the cliffs to ships anchored in the rolling surf. Gordon's Chute was blown away in a heavy storm in 1885 [2]. The Machado family, originally from Portugal, settled the property in the late 1800s, and ranched on the property for close to 100 years. The property was historically grazed with Holstein dairy cows and many of the hillsides and ridgetops were dryland farmed with hay and oats 121. The Scutchfield family acquired the Ranch in the late 1970s and cattle grazing continued while farming operations ceased i3]. In 2008, POST purchased the property from the Scutchfield family. Midpen purchased the property from POST in 2012 and continued grazing operations with the existing residential/grazing tenant, Erik and Doniga Markegard. The property has been continuously grazed for over 120 years. CURRENT LAND USE: The Markegard family leases the property and resides on the Ranch (separate residential lease). The Ranch is currently used primarily for grass-fed beef cattle production on the productive and accessible grasslands. The tenant also produces a number of other agricultural commodities including pasture pork, chickens, eggs, goats, lambs, and turkeys that are marketed through a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) purchasing program, at local farmer's markets, restaurants and through their website [4]. A small number of dairy cows are maintained for milk production as part of a cooperative Herd Share arrangement. The tenant hosts agricultural workshops, ranch dinners and field days on the Ranch throughout the year by permit only. In addition to cattle, a number of horses, sheep, and llamas/alpacas/emus are kept on the property and currently graze the grasslands outside of the Agricultural Lease area. There are also two feral donkeys on the property. Current land uses on the ranch include: ■ Livestock grazing (Beef Cattle and/or sheep with Seasonal Horse use) - Approximately 974 acres ■ Residential and Agricultural Lease Area (House, barns, corrals, and flight pens) — Approximately 11.5 acres 101Page Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 SURROUNDING LAND USE: The surrounding rural landscape is dominated by established ranches used primarily for beef cattle production and row crop production. The region has undergone a recent increase in poultry, grass-fed meat, and egg production as well as Agricultural Lease creamery products. The highly productive flats in the region, where farmable, are ideal for certain vegetable crops, hay, and cut flower production. The adjacent properties to the east and south of Toto Ranch are primarily grazed rangeland with associated residential/farm buildings. The land that borders the Ranch to the north includes a number of small residential lots and small farm fields in addition to grazed rangelands. State Highway -1 and the Pacific Ocean border the Ranch to the west. In a regional context, for San Mateo County, agricultural production continues to provide significant total gross revenue value of $135,440,500 annually [5]. According to the San Mateo County Crop Report, livestock ranchers struggled with drought over the past several years resulting in an estimated decline of 22 percent in stocking rates; however, livestock numbers recovered well through 2016 posting a 14 percent increase over 2015. Figure -1: Looking south over the Toto Ranch. Highway -1 and the Pacific Ocean to the right with surrounding rangelands to the south and east of the Ranch. Several small residential parcels neighbor Toto Ranch, located along the north side of Tunitas Creek. Note the heavily wooded, steep Dry Creek and Tunitas Creek riparian corridors (bottom of photo) that comprises much of the northern border of the Ranch. Photo Credit — POST. 111 Page Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 IMPROVEMENTS ELECTRICITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS: Electricity is provided to the Ranch headquarters by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) via utility poles that cross the ranch, stemming from a main line on Tunitas Creek Road. Municipal water is not available on the Ranch. Figure -2: Aerial view of the Agricultural Lease area and associated buildings including storage barn (bottom right), residence (center), metal -sided shop/barn (top left) and the livestock corral (top center). 12 Page ge Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Whole the District snivel to use the besi a va ilobie diglto l do or, the se data do nor . .. present a legal sarve y a nd a re me rely a graphic Ilosrratlon of geographic fe atures. I. 1uawqueTay Attachment 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION The Toto Ranch is comprised of fourteen (14) soil series types (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1985) identified on the soils map produced by Midpen (Exhibit -D). Soil composition on the property varies delineated by slope, aspect, and elevation. The majority of the ranch (49 percent) is comprised of Tierra loam/Tierra clay loam in addition to Colma loam (27 percent). Gazos loam and Lobitos loam soils are found primarily within the riparian corridors and steep brush covered slopes above the riparian corridors on the Ranch. The remaining soils are present in a very limited capacity, primarily located within the Tunitas Creek riparian corridor along the extreme northern property boundary. Colma and Tunitas loams comprise the majority of the upland grassland and coastal scrub habitat areas suitable for livestock grazing on the Ranch. Steep, densely vegetated riparian corridors and canyons provide little palatable forage for grazing livestock, but can provide shaded areas for loafing, particularly on the fringe areas adjacent to the grazeable grassland and coastal scrub habitats. The Colma and Colma loam soils series consists of deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathering from softly consolidated or weakly consolidated marine sediments. Colma soils are on the foothills and have slopes of 9 to 75 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 27 inches [61. Used mainly for range and watershed lands, small areas have been cleared and planted to hay/silage. Where not farmed, typical vegetation composition consists of coyote brush, Lupine, and poison oak, with an understory of annual grasses and forbs with a few perennial grasses [6]. Colma soils are well drained with medium to rapid runoff, suitable for year-round use by grazing livestock without impacting soil stability or creating soil compaction provided prescribed levels of forage are left on the ground. The Gazos loam soil series consists of moderately deep to bedrock, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from sandstone and shale. Gazos soils are on hills and have slopes of 9 to 75 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 22 inches [61. Used mostly for livestock grazing, a few areas have been cultivated for growing small grains and hay. Where not cultivated, vegetation primarily consists of annual grasses and forbs with brush and some oak trees [6]. Gazos loam soils are well drained with high to very high runoff and moderately slow permeability making them suitable for year-round grazing by livestock. It is important to leave adequate levels of forage on the soil surface to protect soil integrity and minimize the risk of erosion. The Lobitos loam soil series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed on moderately hard sandstone and shale. Lobitos soils are on uplands and have slopes of 5 to 50 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 30 inches [61. Used mostly for pasture and rangeland, some areas have been cultivated to grow grain, hay, barley, and flax. Where not cultivated, vegetation primarily consists of annual grasses and forbs with some brush including coyote brush, cascara berry, and poison oak [61. Lobitos loam soils are well drained with moderate to rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability making them suitable for year-round grazing by livestock. It is important to leave adequate levels of forage on the soil surface to protect soil integrity and minimize the risk of erosion. 141Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 The Tierra soil series consists of deep, moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvial materials from sedimentary rocks. Tierra soils are on dissected terraces and low hills and have slopes of 2 to 50 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 18 inches [61. Used for grazing, growing grains, and growing small grains, and small areas for growing a large number of crops, though many cultivated areas have been reverted to grass. Where not cultivated, vegetation composition is primarily annual grasses and forbs [61. Tierra soils are moderately well drained with slow to rapid runoff and very slow permeability. Tierra soils are suited to year-round livestock grazing, though areas with notably slow permeability are susceptible to soil compaction and grazing should be delayed until soil is firm enough to withstand grazing pressure, typically summer and fall months. The Tunitas soil series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils. They have formed from fine textured alluvium from mixed basic igneous and sedimentary rock sources. Tunitas soils are on nearly level to moderately steep fan terraces and alluvial fans. The mean annual precipitation is about 25 inches [61. Most bodies of this soil class are cultivated, primarily used to grow crops including artichokes Brussels sprouts, flax, small grains, and grain hay. Some sites are used as irrigated pasture for grazing 161. Tunitas soils are moderately well drained with slow to medium runoff and slow permeability. Areas often receive excess water by runoff from surrounding lands and lower lying areas may have temporary high water table during rainy seasons (winter). These soils are very limited on the Ranch but grazing should occur during dry summer months when soils are firm enough to withstand grazing pressure. The Watsonville soil series consists of deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium. Watsonville soils are on old coastal terraces and valleys and have slopes of 0 to 50 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 28 inches [61. Watsonville soils are commonly used as irrigated pasture and to grow field crops, row crops, and specialty crops such as strawberries and Brussels sprouts. Where not cultivated, vegetation typically consists of annual grasses, forbs, and a few coastal chaparral plants [61. These soils are somewhat poorly drained because perched water tables occur during periods of heavy water applications. Slow to rapid runoff and very slow permeability make Watsonville soils very susceptible to soil compaction. Livestock grazing should be delayed until dry summer months when soils are firm enough to withstand grazing pressure. On steeper, more erosion -prone slopes and riparian corridors susceptible to soil compaction, grazing should be delayed until soil is firm enough to withstand grazing pressure without impacting soil stability. Livestock grazing should be managed to protect the soil from erosion as loss of the surface layer can severely decrease forage productivity. The risk of erosion can be reduced by maintaining adequate plant cover and allowing sufficient residual dry matter (RDM) to remain on the soil surface at the conclusion of the grazing season. 151Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 Table -1: Delineation of soil types per acre and percent on the Toto Ranch. SOIL SURVEY DATA -TOTO RANCH, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CA Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in A01 Percent of A01 CIC2 Colma loam„ sloping, eroded 27.6 2.9 CID2 Colma loam, moderately steep, eroded 115.9 12.2 CIE2 Colma loam, steep, eroded 61.1 6.4 CIF2 Colma loam, very steep, eroded 23.0 2.4 CmF3 Colma sandy loam, steep and very steep, severely eroded 20.7 2.2 GbF2 Gazos loam, very steep, eroded 58.5 6.1 GsE2 Gazos and Lobitos stony loams, steep, eroded 1.9 0.2 GsF2 Gazos and Lobitos stony loams, very steep, eroded 21.0 2.1 LIE2 Lobitos loam, steep, eroded 11.8 1.2 L F2 Lobitos loam, very steep, eroded 80.7 8.5 Me Mixed alluvial land 12.5 1.3 Rb Rough broken land 45.7 4.8 Sky Soquel loam, gently sloping 0.6 0.1 Ta Terrace escarpments 0.6 0.1 TcD2 Tierra clay loam, moderately steep, erodecl 7.8 0.8 TeC2 Tierra loam, sloping, eroded 7.8 0.8 TeD2 Tierra loam, moderately steep, eroded 19.0 2.0 TeE2 Tierra loam, steep, eroded 256.2 26.9 TeE3 Tierra loam, steep, severely eroded 175.9 18.5 Tx5 Ta l tas loam, gently slipping 4.5 4.7 WmD2 Watsonville loam, moderately steep, eroded 0.9 0.1 Wm E3 Watsonville loam, moderately steep and steep severely eroded 2.7 2.8 Totals for Area of Interest IA01) 952.3 10'0.0% 161 hags Rangeland Management Plan - Toto Ranch_2018 LOSOZI Cd s :° 62N ;ctiu.,,0..1e'4-0; sa!� .rr\s„co l.ae,:�,.�, &u sB� :Aer 0 171 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 m = 7 Ra,ue r !q 4 >_ t !I \ 1 ' ` R. a �. men r I 'LC✓ ':' r( r' + - - `•�I't' A ,, ____--- c4 4 p f r i s jT �\` 1 eY i 4 _ - �Lllh . - - . Y t a r� 1 ` � I I A y — i , / __ / OP J i ,�d' _ -- -ii �r / Y 1 ~+4 Toto Ranch - Soils Map Galat a Loam: 245.89 Ac res 'Fe rro G oa FOS. and Lobito Ston y Loam: 23.47 fire s Tunit s Gazes Loam: 57.34 WJatsorwille Lobitas Loom: 96.31 A cre s Gams Micip eninsu[a Regional Mixed Alluv ial Land: Op en Spac e bslr cl Loam: 438.96 Acre s P P 11 .15 Acres (AARO50) Loam: 152 Acres Terra ce Es rpments: 1.64 A cre s August 2017 Loom: 3.53 Acres Rou gh5Broke n Lond: 45.665 5 Acres `' OPEN 3NALW I' " SPACE Mile s an d Lobito Soils: 0.0026 A cre s 0 0 0.25 5 Yoh 0e th. Disericaseires lo um 1+naben. mo8a'6ie dighail ciao, these da da do no d rgseeed c hego, sung and are ree re iy o gr pF is llustra dioe o4 ge ographi c remmes. 1uewg3e 1V Attachment 1 VEGETATION DESCRIPTION Overall existing rangeland conditions on the grazed pastureland on the Toto Ranch range from poor to excellent, depending on the forage type, presence of invasive vegetation, and RDM. Infestations of coyote brush and invasive thistles have historically reduced the quality of range conditions by outcompeting desirable vegetation and acting as a barrier to shade out seedlings of desirable vegetation on much of the Ranch. The majority of the ranch is comprised of rolling open grasslands/coastal scrub, heavily influenced by coyote brush encroachment. The steep drainages and riparian corridors are comprised of dense brush/woody vegetation and willows. A large stand of eucalyptus trees are present just east and south of the Agricultural Lease area. Overall, the vegetation diversity and level of desirable vegetation on the Ranch is excellent and supports an abundant, diverse wildlife population while maintaining a highly productive agricultural value. RANGELAND PASTURES: A combination of annual grassland and coastal scrub habitat covers approximately 60-65 percent of the Ranch comprised of a diverse vegetation composition, ranging from 100 percent annual grassland to areas heavily influenced by coyote brush. The vast majority of the grassland forage species are introduced non-native palatable grasses and low forbs that are desirable for livestock grazing. Grassland and scrubland habitats are present on the ridge tops and gentle slopes throughout the Ranch. Upland slopes and ridge tops on the Ranch were historically dryland farmed but were returned to grazed pastureland during the 1970s. These areas are highly productive and relatively free of invasive thistles, except for sparse patches. Dense woody vegetation dominates many of the small drainages and steeper canyon lands within the grazed pasture. While these areas provide little palatable forage for livestock, they provide shaded locations for loafing, particularly along fringe areas adjacent to the grasslands. Vegetation diversity and overall forage production have historically been limited in the lower -lying portions of the ranch, dominated in many areas by dense brush and willows. Invasive plant control efforts by the landowner have reduced the presence and dispersal of invasive vegetation on the Ranch when compared to historic levels. In addition to invasive plant control, the tenant has mowed coyote brush for several years, increasing desirable forage in many of the front pastures between the Agricultural Lease and Highway -1. A comprehensive vegetation assessment was conducted on April 11, 2017, included as Attachment -C to this plan. Figure -3: Exemplary upland habitat on the Toto Ranch comprised annual grasslands impacted by coyote brush encroachment. Many of the grassland/scrub habitat is comprised of about 60 percent annual grassland and 40 percent coyote brush. 181 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 RIPARIAN AND AQUATIC HABITAT: A number of ephemeral streams originate on the Toto Ranch, flowing south to north into Dry Creek and Tunitas Creek. Tunitas and Dry Creeks are perennial streams that flow east to west along the north border of the Ranch. Vegetation types within the riparian corridors are very similar across the Ranch, comprised of dense woody vegetation including brush, willows, alders, and boxelder trees. Two (2) perennial stockponds, one (1) seasonal stockpond, and several smaller seasonal catchments are present on the Ranch. In addition, a number of natural springs are located throughout the Ranch. Vegetation composition around the ponds is primarily annual grassland and coyote brush with the exception of the "Quarry Pond" which is surrounded by willows. Aquatic habitat adjacent to and within the stockponds consists of sedges, rushes, and a variety of other aquatic species. Stockponds and catchments located in the grasslands tend to have invasive thistles around them. A list of riparian and aquatic vegetation species observed during the April 2017 site visit are listed in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1— Riparian and aquatic vegetation observed during an April 2017 site visit includes: RIPARIAN/AQUATIC VEGETATION (OBSERVED) —April 2017 Latin Name Common Name Acer negundo Boxelder Alnus rhombifolia White alder Alnus rubra Red alder Azola filiculoides Water fern Carex bolanderi Bolander's sedge Carexspp. Sedges Eleocharis macrostachya Pale spikerush Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Water pennywort Juncus bufonius Toad rush Juncus effuses Soft rush Juncus patens Spreading rush Juncus phaeocephalus Brown -headed rush Juncus spp. Rushes Juncus xiphioides Irisleaf rush Luzula comosa Pacific woodrush Nasturtium officinale Watercress Oenanthe sarmentosa Water parsley Typha latifolia Cattails Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Rumex crispus Curly dock Salix spp. Willows 191 Page Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 INVASIVE VEGETATION: Invasive vegetation has historically impacted the growth of desirable vegetation including forage for grazing livestock. During an April 2017 site visit, a few scattered individual wooly distaff (Carthamus lanatus) plants were identified in the flats near the Agricultural Lease. Milk thistle (Silybum marianum), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) are found in scattered locations across the Ranch in low densities, though these thistles tend to vary in abundance annually based on precipitation patterns but typically don't dominate grasslands under moderate grazing conditions in San Mateo County. Onion grass (Romulea rosea) is found growing throughout the annual grasslands across many parts of the Ranch. Onion grass occurrences in San Mateo County are becoming more common but have not yet been rated by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). Onion grass is a small, erect perennial herb with bulbous roots and produces a small purple flower in the spring (Figure -4). Onion grass is difficult for grazing animals to digest and if consumed in large quantities, can create a fiber block in cattle. Invasive plants found in the riparian corridor are primarily limited to fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Himalayan blackberries (Rubus armeniacus), and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum). French broom (Genista monspessulana), a woody perennial, has become established in portions of Tunitas and Dry Creek. French broom is classified as a "High" concern by Cal-IPC as it spreads rapidly and will outcompete desirable vegetation. See Invasive Weed Control in Section VII for management recommendations. Table 2.2 — Cal-IPC Rate Invasive plant species list. INVASIVE VEGETATION (OBSERVED) — April 2017 Latin Name Common Name Cal-IPC Rating Carduus pycnocephalus Italian Thistle Moderate Carthamus lanatus Wooly distaff thistle Moderate (alert) Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle Moderate Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Moderate Cortaderia jubata Purple pampas grass High Delairea odorata Cape Ivy High Foeniculum vulgare Fennel High Genista monspessulana French Broom High Helminthotheca ecioides Bristly Ox -tongue Limited Silybum marianum Milk Thistle Limited Table 2.3 — Rangeland plants not desirable for livestock grazing. INVASIVE VEGETATION (OBSERVED) — April 2017 Latin Name Common Name Cal-IPC Rating Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Not Rated Romulea rosea Onion Grass Not Rated Solanum furcatum Forked nightshade Not Rated Solanum douglasii Greenspot nightshade Not Rated Xanthium spinosum Spiny cocklebur Not Rated 20Ha, Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 Figure -4: Onion grass (Romulea rosea) found on the Toto Ranch. Note the small purple flower and bulbous root balls. WATER SOURCES The Toto Ranch has historically lacked ample water supply, particularly under drought conditions, to provide adequate residential and stock water year round. Livestock water within the Agricultural Lease and pastureland adjacent to the Agricultural Lease is provided through a number of water troughs. The water troughs are supplied via two (2) wells on the ridge near the south property boundary; one well is pumped via a solar pump and the second via a windmill (Figure -5). In addition to the developed water systems, a network of stockponds and seasonal catchments provide stock water throughout the Ranch. A number of natural springs are present but not currently developed to provide stock water. Livestock do not have access to Tunitas Creek or Dry Creek and creeks are not considered viable water sources for the livestock operation. Residential water for the Agricultural Lease area is provided via a natural spring located on the ridge to the south of the Agricultural Lease. Refer to Toto Ranch Water Infrastructure Map (Exhibit -E). Figure -5: Windmill powered well located on the ridge along the southern property boundary. Well water is pumped into storage tanks and then flows via gravity to the Agricultural Lease area where water is provided to livestock in a number of water troughs. 211Pagc Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Midpeninsulc Regio nal Op en Spac e Districd (MROSD) August 2017 L lu@Wg0eTIV Attachment 1 WILDLIFE Wildlife is abundant throughout the Toto Ranch. The riparian corridors, particularly around the stockponds, provide habitat for various aquatic and amphibian species, including the federally listed California red -legged frog (CRLF). Black tailed deer, coyote, bobcats, badgers and many other animals are present on the Ranch. Special Status Species1 The California Natural Diversity Database lists a number of special status wildlife species found within the Tunitas Creek watershed, most of which are found in the lower reaches and tidal areas. A large group of Midpen staff and specialized biologists surveyed Toto Ranch in April of 2017 and developed a comprehensive list of wildlife species observed on the Ranch. Special status wildlife species potentially found in the upper portions of the watershed, and found either historically or currently on the Toto Ranch include: A. Animals AMPHIBIANS/REPTILES: Rana draytonii, California red -legged frog - Federal threatened, CA species of special concern Thamnophis sirtalis tetratania, San Francisco garter snake — and State Federal endangered BIRDS: Athene cunicularia, Burrowing owl — CA species of special concern Circus cyaneus, Northern Harrier — CA species of special concern Geothlypis trichas sinuosa, San Francisco common yellowthroat — USFW bird of conservation concern & CA species of special concern Selasphorus sasin, Allen's Hummingbird - USFW bird of conservation concern FISH: Oncorhynchus kisutch, Coho Salmon - Federal endangered & State endangered Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus, Steelhead Trout — Federal threatened MAMMMALS: Neotoma fuscipes annectens, San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat — CA species of special concern Taxidea taxus, American badger — CA species of special concern B. Plants Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus, Choris' popcorn flower — CNPS Rank 1B.2 & Midpen BMP 1 This information is used for planning purposes only 231 Page Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 EXISTING AGRICULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE ➢ Agricultural Buildings Agricultural buildings located on the Ranch include a 4,390 ft.z metal -sided barn/shop with utilities and a 1,325 ft.2 storage barn. The metal -sided barn/shop/walk-in freezers for meat storage building is located in the main yard, includes running water, power, concrete floor, and bathroom and is in good condition. The storage barn is located just east of the residence and is in fair condition structurally; however, the roof is in poor condition. ➢ Corrals and Congregation Areas A set of wood livestock corrals are located within the Agricultural Lease area used for processing and shipping/receiving livestock. The corrals are old but in fair condition and function adequately for the existing livestock operation on the Ranch. The corral is accessible year-round by truck/trailer and semi -trucks via an all-weather gravel road. Figure -6: Wooden livestock corral with metal -sided barn/shop building (right). Small pastures or flight pens are ideal for running sheep, goats and other small livestock (foreground). ➢ Water Sources Water is provided to livestock primarily through a number of plastic, concrete, and galvanized water troughs located within the Agricultural Lease area and nearby pastures. All water troughs should be equipped with wildlife escape ramps to prevent entrapment of wildlife. Water is primarily supplied by a windmill/well and solar pump/well. Water is collected in one 2,500 gallon and two (2) 5,000 -gallon water storage tanks near the wells and flows via gravity to the Agricultural Lease before distribution to the troughs in/around the Agricultural Lease. 241 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ➢ Roads A network of fourteen (14) stockponds and seasonal water catchments provide stock water throughout the remainder of the Ranch, though water is often seasonal, particularly under drought conditions. Livestock tend to rely primarily on trough water around the Agricultural Lease during late summer and fall months. Increased water distribution and placement of new water troughs would increase livestock distribution and forage utilization in more remote pastures. Residential water is provided via a natural spring above the residence, collected in a 5,000 -gallon water storage tank, and then pumped to the house. Figure -7: A plastic water trough in the pasture south of the residence. Note the invasive thistle and poison hemlock growing around the trough. These plastic troughs are designed to be temporary and should be replaced with galvanized or concrete troughs in grazed pastures. A wildlife escape ramp is missing from this trough and should be installed to protect wildlife that may fall into the water. State Route -1 (Cabrillo Highway), a well -traveled, paved State Highway delineates the west property boundary of the Ranch for approximately 1.2 miles. The main entrance to the Ranch originates off State Route -1, comprised of a paved/gravel road. The driveway, part of historic Star Hill Road, continues east for approximately 3/4 of a mile to the Agricultural Lease area. The driveway, where paved is in good condition; however, the gravel sections are in poor condition with numerous large potholes. The driveway receives heavy year-round use by the residential/grazing tenant with added impacts from the many field day events the tenant hosts. While the gravel section of the driveway is in poor condition, when properly maintained, the driveway poses no risk to downstream water quality. In general, roads on the Ranch are in fair to good condition, though minimally maintained. Most Ranch roads are minimally graded with native vegetation ground cover present, often times delineated by vehicle tracks in the vegetation from continued use by the tenant. While many of the roads are stable and in good condition, several areas are impacted by active gullying/rutting from surface water flow. Winter rains will continue to cause damage to the road surface and potentially transport sediment into local streams. In addition, a number of roads, particularly 251 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 along the back half of the Ranch, are overgrown with brush creating hazardous access conditions for vehicles and pose a fire risk from vehicle ignition sources during hot dry conditions. A ranch road beginning in the Agricultural Lease and looping around to the back half of the Ranch is impassible due to a large seep/spring creating a mud bog. The road was historically accessible but has not been used in several years. If road repairs are undertaken in this location, (installation of culvert or ford crossing, road reroute, or other) engineering oversight should ensure correct sizing and placement of erosion control features, to allow access and protection of wetland features associated with the spring. Figure -8: Gully/rutting activity along an insloped road just south of the Agricultural Lease. Large gully caused by surface water flow during winter storm events. Road should be re -graded and water diversion points installed to relieve surface flow to protect the integrity of the road. 26I Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ➢ Fencing Toto Ranch is secured on all borders by a combination of "New Zealand style" smooth wire fencing and natural barriers. Interior pasture fencing currently divides the ranch into five (5) main pastures with numerous additional small pastures around the Agricultural Lease. Interior pasture fencing is comprised of "New Zealand style" fencing in varying condition, barbed wire fence, and natural barriers. Maintenance of the "New Zealand style" fencing is ongoing as fences are relatively old and the smooth wire used for the fencing tends to break often when compared to traditional barbed wire fencing. Landowner has installed new barbed wire fencing along some pasture boundaries. Natural slope, rock, and brush barriers have been used historically to contain cattle in many places on the Ranch; however, the brush barriers would be ineffective if wildfire should burn boundaries of the grassland areas. The grazing tenant installed a Management Intensive Grazing (MIG) system consisting of approximately 60 small grazing paddocks, constructed of temporary electric fencing. The MIG, located west of the Agricultural Lease, is designed for high -intensity, short duration grazing as cattle are regularly rotated between paddocks during the "green" growing season, typically January through June. No notable resource management benefits have been derived through use of the MIG system. Figure -9: Sample of New Zealand style smooth wire fencing on the Toto Ranch. The high tinsel smooth wire is susceptible to damage and often breaks. Most fences on the ranch are older and in varying condition. 271 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Tato Ranch - Current Infrastructure Water Distributio n Line Fence or Natural Barrier Co rra l Wa ter Tank Waier Trou gh e Wcll Sp`''ig Midpeninsula Regi on al Op en Spac e District (MR OSD) F ebruary 2018 025 0.5 While the Distric t WI ea to use the be st availa ble aig dal data, the se data do no represe nt o le gal wry ey and are mere ly o gra ohm ill_skctian of ge og- opts fe at u-es . eW aanpnalsea}ui l iuewgoelly Attachment 1 RANGELAND CONDITION The Toto Ranch is comprised of approximately 60 percent annual grasslands and/or grassland - coastal scrub, which have historically been farmed, and more recently grazed with cattle. Grazed rangeland pastures on the ranch total approximately 940 acres excluding the Agricultural Lease area. Of the 940 acres of pastureland, approximately 546 acres are comprised of annual grassland or a coastal scrub/grassland mix that provide palatable forage for livestock. The current grazing tenant, Erik and Doniga Markegard dba Markegard Family Grass -Fed LLC, has resided upon and leased the grazing rights on Toto Ranch since the late 1980s while under private ownership and continuing under current ownership by Midpen. Markegard Family Grass-fed currently grazes the rangeland pastures on Toto Ranch with beef cattle, a combination of stocker cattle and cow/calf pairs raised primarily to market as grass-fed beef. Current forage conditions on the Ranch appear good with abundant palatable forage available for livestock, with an even mix of dry standing forage and emerging green vegetation. Forage conditions and residual dry matter (RDM) on the property indicate an appropriate stocking rate in relation to current forage production 171. Livestock distribution and overall forage utilization vary based on available stockwater. Natural water sources have been limited by drought conditions over the past four years and livestock have primarily relied on water sources near the Agricultural Lease area. As a result, livestock distribution and overall forage utilization have been lower than expected, especially on the eastern half of the Ranch. The current rotational grazing regime provides good control of livestock distribution and forage utilization across the Ranch provided stockwater is available. ➢ Forage Quality Forage quality in addition to forage quantity (annual production) play a key role in determining carrying capacity for a pasture and for the entire ranch. Forage quality as well as forage production vary somewhat across the Ranch based on soil type, topography, aspect, invasive vegetation, and water. In general, forage quality is good with a high abundance of palatable, nutritious grasses and forbs. Forage quality in some areas is negatively impacted by the presence of invasive vegetation. Several of the steeper, forested/brushy slopes provide little to no palatable forage for livestock. Mineral and nutrient supplements are currently provided to livestock on the ranch to maximize productivity and maintain livestock health, though it is not known if mineral and/or nutrient supplements are necessary to account for potential nutrient deficiencies in native forage. A thorough nutrient analysis may be performed on forage samples from the Ranch, if desired by the livestock operator, to more accurately determine forage nutrient quality and livestock supplement requirements. 291 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ➢ Forage Production Palatable forage production ranges from fair to excellent across the Ranch excluding the steeper, wooded slopes and dense brushy canyons. Forage production may be slightly lower around rocky outcroppings or eroded slopes, as the soil tends to be shallow, which can limit rooting and nutrient/water uptake by plants. Palatable forage production can be impacted by the presence of invasive vegetation such as distaff thistle and predominantly coyote brush, which outcompete desirable vegetation, and is evident on many sites throughout the Ranch. Highly palatable annual grasses and low growing forbs comprise the majority of vegetation available for grazing livestock. Based on the available standing forage observed during an April 2017 site visit, the current stocking rate is adequate when compared to annual forage production on the Ranch RI, though the stocking rate tends to vary seasonally. Estimated annual forage production for the Toto Ranch is determined through estimates based on soil class provided in the San Mateo County Soil Survey (USDA, 1985). Non -forage producing areas of the Ranch, including the developed Agricultural Lease, stockponds, forested slopes, and dense brushy canyons have been deducted from the total grassland acres utilized to calculate available dry weight forage production shown in Table -6. Dry weight forage production estimates per soil class are shown in Table -3: Table -3: Total forage production estimates per soil class provided by NRCS. Soil Map Unit -r Approx. Total Dry Weight Forage Production Acres (lbs.Jacre) Unfavorable Normal Favorable Year Year CIC2-D2-E2 GbF2 GsF2 LIF2 Ma Rb Ta TeD2-E2-E3 TxA WmA Colma loam Gazos loam Gazos-Lobitos stony loam Lobitos loam 246 1,800 57 1,000 23 1,000 96 1,500 Mixed Alluvial Land - stony Rough Broken Land - rocky Terrace Escarpments — sandy Tierra loam Tunitas loam Watsonville loam 11 1,000 2,500 1,500 1,500 2,250 1,500 3,000 1,800 1,800 2,700 1,800 46 1,500 2,250 2,700 2 1,000 1,500 1,800 439 2,000 2,500 3,500 4 1,000 1,500 1,800 4 1,000 Total Grazed Acres 952 1,500 1,800 301 Page Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 VI. Capacity for Conducting Agricultural Uses A capacity assessment of agricultural uses on the Toto Ranch has been approximated by reviewing both current and historic agricultural uses and other factors. Information provided in the following section establishes a basis for determining potential levels of agricultural uses on the property by quantifying the carrying capacity based on existing infrastructure, forage production, soil quality, water availability, and space while protecting ecological resources. GRAZING CAPACITY ESTIMATE Rangeland livestock production is the primary agricultural use on the Toto Ranch in terms of acres in production. Forage production estimates are utilized to determine livestock carrying capacity and an estimated range of stocking rates. Proposed carrying capacity estimates for the Ranch are established using forage production estimates based on soil class units derived from the San Mateo County Soil Survey 181. Table -4: Animal Unit Equivalents. Animal Unit Equivalents Animal Kind & Class Animal Unit Equivalent Cow, dry 1.00 Cow, with calf 1.00 Bull, mature 1.50 Horse 1.25 Replacement Heifer 0.50 (400-700 lbs.) Replacement Heifer 0.75 (700-1,000 lbs.) Sheep, mature 0.25 Lamb, 1 year old 0.15 An animal unit month (AUM) is the amount of dry forage consumed by one animal unit in one month (assuming consumption of dry weight forage equal to 3.3% of body weight), roughly equivalent to 1,020 pounds. Table -5 depicts available forage, per the Soil Survey descriptions, for 'favorable', 'normal', and 'unfavorable' production years. 'Available forage' is calculated by deducting the RDM desired at the end of the grazing season (average of 1,000 lbs. per acre) from the total forage production. Based on available forage on the currently grazed pasture area of the Ranch, leaving an average of 1,000 pounds of RDM, the estimated carrying capacity ranges from 957.6 AUMs in a favorable year to 365.4 AUMs in an unfavorable year with an average carrying capacity of 632.0 AUMs in normal production years (Table -6). 311 Page Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 > Favorable Production Year: 957.6 AUMs = Approximately 80 cows year-round or 320 ewes year-round. > Average Production Year: 632.0 AUMs = Approximately 53 cows year-round or 212 ewes year-round. ➢ Unfavorable Production Year: 365.4 AUMs = Approximately 31 cows year-round or 124 ewes year-round. Table -5: Available dry -weight forage for grazing livestock (currently grazed pastures) derived from NRCS Soil Survey data. Calculations assume leaving an average of 1,000 pounds per acre of RDM and 10% forage loss due to natural conditions such as wind, trampling, etc. Acreage has been deducted for the farmstead area and dense brush/wooded areas that provide little to no palatable forage (393.5 acres). Soil Map Unit Approx. Acres Available Production Unfavorable Year 1 Dry Weight (Ibs./acre) Normal Forage Favorable L Year CIC2-D2-E2 Colma loam 146 800 1,500 2,003 GbF2 Cazos loam 0 0 0 0 GsF2 Gazos-Lobltos stony loam 0 0 0 0 LIF2 Lobitos loam 76 500 1,250 1,700 Ma Mixed Alluvial Land - stony 0 0 0 0 Rb Rough Broken Land - rocky 46 500 1,250 1,700 Ta Terrace Escarpments — sandy 0 0 0 0 TeD2-E2-E3 Tierra loam 279 1,000 1,500 2,500 TxA Tunitas loam 0 0 0 0 WmA Watsonville loam 0 0 0 0 Total Grazed Acres 547 Table -6: Estimated carrying capacity for Toto Ranch based on calculated available forage production on grazeable acres. Soil Map Unit Approximate Grassland Acres Estimated _ (Animal Unfavorable Year Carrying Capacity Unit Months) Normal Favorable Year CIC2-32-E2 146.0 93.4 175.2 233.6 LIF2 76.0 30.4 76.0 103.4 Rb 46.0 13.4 46.0 62.6 TeD2-E2-E3 279.0 223.2 334.8 558.0 TOTAL 547.0 365.4 632.0 957.6 Year-round Stocking Rate in Animal Units (AUs) (AU Ms - 12 months) 30-5 52J 79..8 321 PDge Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 Stocking rates should be adjusted downward or upward annually depending on precipitation (distribution and quantity) and annual forage production. Standing forage will determine pasture rotation, at the livestock operator's discretion, provided they remain within the prescribed forage standards. At no time should there be significant areas of bare soil void of vegetation cover present in the grazed pastures. A minimum of two to three inches of forage should be left as ground cover during both the growing season and dry summer and fall months. Table -6 details the estimated carrying capacity for the Ranch, in AUMs and AUs, as derived from forage production data provided in the NRCS Soil Survey. The estimated carrying capacity for the Ranch is approximately comparable to historic stocking levels. Coyote brush is well established in many of the steeper canyons and has expanded into the ridgetops and open grassland areas overtime. Coyote brush encroachment in the grasslands has reduced forage production by 50 to 80 percent in many pastures. The landowner has attempted mechanical control of the coyote brush by mowing, primarily in the front pastures between the Agricultural Lease and State Route -1. The mowing has reduced the size of the individual plants but has done little to reduce the quantity and percent cover of the coyote brush. A coyote brush encroachment management plan should be developed for the Ranch. Future brush control efforts, including chemical control, should be considered following the recommendations in the coyote brush management plan to maintain the estimated carrying capacity. DAIRY CAPACITY The current tenant maintains a small number of dairy cows that are used for milk production as part of a cooperative Herd Share program. A large-scale dairy operation has never been a part of operations on the Toto Ranch and adequate infrastructure including loafing barn, suitable milk parlor, and wastewater treatment infrastructure, are not currently available. Instating a dairy operation on the Ranch is not recommended based on infrastructure requirements, associated economic constraints, and potential ecological/water quality impacts. ADDITIONAL LIVESTOCK, EQUINE, AND POULTRY The Ranch is currently used primarily for grass-fed beef cattle production on the productive and accessible grasslands. The tenant also produces a number of other agricultural commodities including pasture pork, chickens, eggs, goats, lambs, and turkeys that are marketed through a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) purchasing program [41. In addition to cattle, a number of horses and llamas/alpacas/emus are kept on the property and currently graze the grasslands outside of the Agricultural Lease area. A number of small pens, flight pens, coops and additional infrastructure are currently established within the Agricultural Lease area to support the production of small livestock and poultry. Tenant has experienced issues of predation on small livestock by coyotes and mountain lions in the past. Small livestock including pasture pigs, chickens, goats, turkeys, and llamas should be restricted to the designated Agricultural Lease area and associated small pastures. Pasture raised pigs create a large ground disturbance prone to 33I Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 erosion and promote the growth of invasive thistles. Pigs should be restricted to flat areas in the Agricultural Lease. Seven (7) working ranch horses, used as part of the grazing operation, may be kept on the property. Breeding, training, raising and selling horses (Horse Operations) are not considered agricultural uses and are not recommended on the Toto Ranch. Boarding outside horses should be prohibited. Working ranch horses will be permitted to graze in Pastures #1, #2, and #3 (front pastures) during the dry months, typically from May -October. FIELD CROP/ORCHARD PRODUCTION Portions of the Toto Ranch, primarily ridge tops, were historically farmed for silage/grain crops during the early to mid -1900s but have not been farmed since that time. The landowner does not plan to implement a large-scale cultivated farming operation on the Ranch and plans to continue use of the pastures for livestock grazing to foster and enhance habitat for wildlife. While Toto Ranch has suitable land for farming, sediment from the highly erodible soils on the Ranch would negatively impact downstream water quality and disrupt/destroy valuable wildlife habitat. Cultivated farming operations are not recommended in any capacity on the Ranch. The tenant may grow vegetable crops and/or tree crops for personal use provided such production is performed within the Agricultural Lease area. Vegetable crops considered for planting by the tenant must be approved by Midpen's Natural Resources Department prior to planting and should not include any species considered by the California invasive Species Council (http://www.cal-ipc.org) as "invasive", such as fennel. Trees imported for planting on the property must be pre -approved by Midpen's Natural Resources staff and soil associated with trees and potted plants must be tested for the presence of phytopthora prior to entering the property. Any and all soils associated with potted plants and/or trees that test positive for phytopthora are strictly prohibited on the property. Prior written consent may be required by Midpen and location of vegetable garden must be pre -approved by Midpen staff. Vegetable gardens and/or small orchards should be located in an area that will not impact downstream water quality and will not decrease the grazing capacity of the Ranch. VII. Management Recommendations & Best Management Practices (BMPs): The Toto Ranch has a long history of diversified agricultural production. The following management recommendations and Best Management Practices (BMPs) will help ensure the sustainability of agricultural production on the Ranch while protecting rangeland health, soil stability, water quality and the control of invasive vegetation to cooperatively conserve and enhance habitat for wildlife. RANGELAND LIVESTOCK OPERATION 341 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ➢ Vegetation Prescriptions: Leaving prescribed levels of residual dry matter (RDM) on the ground surface will provide a grassland seed crop for the following season, minimize the risk for soil erosion and sedimentation, protect water quality and reduce the presence of invasive vegetation. To protect soil stability, minimize the risk of sedimentation into local streams, and the spread of invasive vegetation, all grazed pastures on the ranch should meet the following RDM performance standards per average slope at the conclusion of the grazing season: ■ 0-30% Slopes — An average minimum of two to three inches of forage — approximately an average of 800-1,000 pounds per acre per Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) definition. ■ Greater than 30% Slopes — An average minimum of three to four inches of RDM — approximately an average of 1,000-1,200 pounds per acre per NRCS and UCCE definition. At no time should there be significant areas of bare soil void of vegetation cover in any of the grazed pastures, particularly on steep upland slopes or areas adjacent to riparian corridors. A minimum of two to three inches of forage should be left as ground cover during both the growing season and dry summer and fall months. ➢ Grazing Season: A light to moderate year-round rotational grazing regime is best suited for the Toto Ranch. Rotating livestock between pastures, particularly when grazing for a short duration, will require a greater commitment by the livestock manager in terms of time and monitoring, but will ultimately enhance biodiversity, aesthetics and overall forage production. Lack of available stockwater has historically limited grazing capacity during the late summer and fall months, particularly under drought conditions. If limited water availability during summer and fall months persists, Midpen may elect to implement a seasonal grazing regime or a partially seasonal grazing regime with higher stocking rates during winter and spring and reduced stocking during the summer and fall. In a rotational grazing regime, standing forage will determine pasture rotation, at the livestock operator's discretion, provided they remain within the recommended forage standards. On steeper, more erosion prone slopes, and riparian pastures with softer soils, grazing should be delayed until soil is firm enough to withstand grazing pressure without impacting soil stability. Livestock grazing should be managed to protect the soil from erosion as loss of the surface layer can severely decrease long-term forage productivity. Rotating a combination of sheep and cattle between pastures may enhance forage utilization and improve ecological benefits of grazing. Additionally, sheep require less water than cattle and may be a good grazing alternative during drought years or the dry summer months. ➢ Water Supply: 35IPage Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 Livestock generally prefer the cleaner, cooler water in troughs. Developing alternative water sources will reduce dependence by livestock on stream channels/stockponds, minimizing potential impacts to aquatic vegetation and stream bank stability. In addition to stockponds, a number of galvanized, concrete, and plastic troughs are located within the Agricultural Lease and in pastures to the south and west of the Agricultural Lease, all fed via the wells on the ridge southwest of the Agricultural Lease. A number of stock water troughs are located within the Agricultural Lease/corral and in pastures adjacent to the Agricultural Lease, including numerous plastic troughs. More durable, permanent concrete or galvanized troughs should replace the plastic troughs. Continue to monitor water infrastructure and complete maintenance and repairs as necessary. Wildlife escape ramps should be installed in all water troughs on the Ranch. The livestock water system providing water to the Agricultural Lease and water troughs in pastures adjacent to the Agricultural Lease, including the wells, solar pump, windmill, pipes, and storage tank are in excellent condition. Despite the quality infrastructure, low water yield from existing wells often limits livestock grazing capacity during summer and fall months. Water from the wells should be used strictly for livestock water and shall not be used for pasture irrigation. Irrigating annual grasslands does not provide an ecological benefit. A large, naturally occurring spring in Field -3 located along the loop road has made the road impassible. Developing the spring following District guidance for wildlife friendly spring development and installing a solar powered pump, storage tank, and water troughs will provide a valuable water supply to Field -3, which lacks sufficient stock water. Developing this water source will allow properly timed grazing to promote distribution of the Choris' popcorn flower, which is growing near the spring. Additionally, developing the spring and distributing water to troughs in the uplands of the pasture will reduce the use of the spring by livestock and minimize the risk of the Choris' popcorn flower being trampled/damaged by cattle. A thorough assessment of the site should be performed to determine potential construction impacts and hydrologic function of the site which may affect the nearby Choris' popcorn flower population. If determined that construction is feasible without impacting the population, continue subsequent monitoring of the Choris' popcorn flower population at this site to determine changes is density and distribution and amend management practices as necessary to enhance habitat for the population. See Proposed Infrastructure & Improvements Map for location of proposed water infrastructure. ➢ Stockponds: Landowner should perform routine maintenance of stock ponds, including de -silting and vegetation management to maintain water storage capacity, habitat value, and protect downstream water bodies from sedimentation, as necessary. Maintaining the spillway and berm on the stockponds will preserve storage capacity, extend lifespan of stockponds, and enhance habitat for aquatic species. Stockponds on the ranch are in good condition with the exception of a series of small ponds located near the driveway in pastures west of the Agricultural Lease. 361 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 While these ponds are small, and often seasonal, they provide a valuable water source for livestock. Well developed stockponds providing valuable wildlife habitat and an important water source for wildlife and livestock should be prioritized for maintenance and repairs over small seasonal ponds and/or catchments. An analysis of stockponds should be performed by the landowner to determine which stockponds should be considered for maintenance and repairs based on water rights, their habitat value, stockwater value, and risk to downstream water quality. Smaller stockponds or seasonal catchments may be decommissioned and restored to natural drainage to protect downstream water quality if determined to not provide significant habitat value or an important water source for livestock. Perennial ponds, suitable seasonal stockponds (for which water rights exist) and their associated surrounding upland habitat should be enhanced to support California red -legged frog which currently occur on site, as well as a population of San Francisco garter snake which was documented as occurring along Tunitas Creek from Highway 1 to Dry Creek during research conducted by Barry from 1971-1983 (California Natural Diversity Database). Pond management activities require a suite of regulatory agency approvals and should not be undertaken unless approved by the District Natural Resources Department. ➢ Supplemental Feed: Proper placement of livestock watering facilities and supplemental feed/mineral stations will promote good livestock distribution. Supplemental feed (mineral tubs, salt blocks, etc.) should be placed on uplands and ridge tops away from water sources and riparian features. It is recommended that supplemental forage provided to livestock be certified as "Weed Free". If certified weed free hay is not available, locally produced supplemental forage (hay) that is fed in pastures should be thoroughly inspected by Midpen Natural Resource Department staff prior to feeding to ensure it does not contain invasive vegetation that may spread seed into pastures. Supplemental feeding should not be used to extend the grazing season beyond the point at which the prescribed RDM levels are reached in the pastures. ➢ Fencing and Corrals: Responsibilities for the maintenance of existing ranch infrastructure in good condition and make repairs or improvements as necessary are defined in the lease. Maintaining quality, functional infrastructure, including fencing and corrals, will increase the ease of livestock handling and effectiveness of rotating livestock between pastures as well controlling livestock access to sensitive riparian corridors. Providing safe facilities will provide a low -stress atmosphere for livestock and minimize risk of injury. Sheep grazing on the rangelands will require the installation of new mesh fence or the use of temporary electric fence to control access. Sheep should be confined to predator proof pens or paddocks during the night. 37IPage Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 While most perimeter fence around Toto Ranch is "cow tight", many sections of the New Zealand style smooth wire fence along the west and south property boundaries are old and failing. Sections and/or all of the western and southern boundary fences should be replaced with barbed wire cattle fence as existing fence fails. Use Midpen specifications for livestock fencing including galvanized wire, steel t -posts, and galvanized pipe braces. Install a new section of barbed wire livestock fence southeast of the Agricultural Lease to split Field -3 into two separate pastures. Dividing this pasture will make management of the Choris' popcorn flower more feasible by allowing grazing tenant to rotate cattle and properly time grazing. Additionally, by aligning the new fence to bisect pond TC-06, the pond can be used as a water source for both pastures and grazing can be timed to protect emergent vegetation for CRLF. The fence should extend from the south property line north to an existing cross -fence that runs east from the Agricultural Lease (approximately 3,100 linear feet). See Proposed Infrastructure and Improvements map for new fence alignment. Old fencing that does not act as a pasture barrier may impede wildlife travel or injure wildlife/livestock. Old fencing should be removed and disposed of at a waste facility. ➢ Herd Health: Maintaining a healthy, productive livestock herd is fundamental to profitability and sustainability. A herd health program that includes appropriate inoculations is recommended. De -worming livestock and providing additional nutrients will further increase productivity. ➢ Ranch Roads: Ranch roads provide access for the grazing operation, infrastructure/ranch maintenance, restoration work, recreation, and emergency response. Landowner and/or grazing tenant should work to maintain ranch roads in good condition. Routine maintenance may include cleaning ditches and culverts, particularly during storm events, is important. Maintaining road grades, water diversions, and water bars during winter months to minimize water flow on road surfaces is important in reducing potential soil erosion and road damage. Mowing vegetation on road surfaces is recommended to provide a safe driving environment. Mowing, as opposed to grading, is recommended to leave a vegetation cover on the road surface that helps hold soil in place during storm events and reduce the risk of erosion and damage to ranch roads. Additionally, mowing roads will not create a soil disturbance that can lead to increased spread of invasive plant species. Two sections of ranch road are in poor condition with large ruts creating hazardous driving conditions and causing continued sedimentation of downstream waterways. These sections of road should be repaired to prevent continued damage to the driving surface and protect water quality on the Ranch (Exhibit -G). Improvements may including rocking the ditch, re -grading the road bed, revegetating the road bed/ditch, installation of rolling dips/water diversions, and 381 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 installation of erosion control products such as straw waddles or silt fence. The main gravel driveway between State Route -1 and the Agricultural Lease has many large potholes that should be graded/filled to make access to the Ranch easier, but the driveway, when properly maintained, is currently not at risk of affecting natural resource values on the property. Any road repairs that may discharge sediment into downstream watercourses may require permits from regulatory agencies prior to implementation. Proposed road work should first be approved by District natural resources staff to ensure regulatory compliance. EXHIBIT -G — PROPOSED ROAD REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1 - Road Repair/Install Culvert UNITAS CREEK 6REN SPACE PRE'S'ERVE Tato Ranch - Road Repairs /v Road Repair Locations MileG 0 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) August 2017 0.25 0.5 Mb &e daresarnm ra da r1ha b® rnabldn doio, dine data do not tap rear olgd suss, old mem.* a gaphic adOn on of per<popnir 6mires 391 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ➢ Drought Preparedness Agricultural production has historically provided a significant source of income for the Ranch and continues to be an important factor in maintaining its sustainability. Drought conditions can severely hinder the operational capacity and productivity of a ranch and can threaten long-term sustainability. Planning ahead to accommodate for a drought can alleviate some of the potential impacts such as lack of forage, lack of water, herd health, mineral deficiencies, and overall lack of production by livestock when droughts occur. The following management practices can help alleviate the impacts of drought: ■ Maintain a clean, reliable water source for livestock and maintain an increased water storage capacity. The Ranch currently has a good water supply system in place, though water production is often limited during summer/fall months. Develop additional water sources such as springs and wells if feasible. If water yield increases, increase water storage by adding additional water storage tanks for livestock drinking water. ■ Lower stocking rates to slightly below the recommended carrying capacity for the forage production year to provide a small surplus of forage to carry livestock through the fall until new, green forage is available. If drought conditions persist, lower stocking rates further to extend the grazing season and use of available forage. ■ Implement a grass banking system. Save forage in a designated pasture by minimizing or eliminating grazing pressure during the late spring and summer. If available forage is depleted in grazed pastures, forage will be available in the grass bank pasture. ■ Store supplemental forage, such as hay, that can be fed to livestock to supplement the natural forage during a drought. ■ Provide livestock with mineral/protein supplements to increase forage utilization, herd health, and overall productivity. PATHOGEN REDUCTION AND RISK MANAGEMENT Livestock waste contains many microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Some of these microorganisms do not cause sickness in animals or humans, however, some are pathogens, meaning they are capable of causing disease in animals and/or humans. Pathogens can be transmitted to humans directly through contact with animals and animal waste or indirectly through contaminated water or food. Common pathogens responsible for health related ailments in humans include cryptosporidium, E. coli, Leptospira, and salmonella. The following BMPs should be implemented to help reduce the risk of animal waste contaminating water sources within and downstream of the Toto Ranch: ■ Restrict livestock access to Tunitas Creek, Dry Creek, and perennial tributaries to both water courses to eliminate fecal deposits in the waterway. 401 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ■ Maintain a natural vegetative buffer of no less than thirty (30) feet from the top of bank in Tunitas Creek, Dry Creek, and perennial tributaries. The vegetative buffer will act as a natural filter to trap potential pathogens before they reach the water body. ■ Domestic swine have a high frequency of salmonella. Restrict pasture swine rearing to flat pens within the Agricultural Lease area and maintain a minimum 100 foot vegetative buffer between swine and perennial streams. ■ Control runoff and leaching from stockpiled manure, confined livestock, and corral facilities. Maintain a 100 foot vegetative buffer between corrals/confined livestock pens and perennial streams. ■ Fly and vermin control in livestock facilities may also reduce the spread and subsequent infection of other animals with pathogenic bacteria. Flies and bird fecal samples from cattle farms in the U.S. have tested positive for E. coll. Numerous studies indicate that Salmonella can survive for at least several days, and for as long as nine months, on insects and rodents, and for up to five months in rodent feces. Work to control flies and rodents in the Agricultural Lease area. Additionally, remove excess fecal waste from livestock including sheep, goats, horses, chickens, cattle, alpacas and swine within the confined livestock pens and corrals to reduce fly and insect presence. • • Provide off -stream livestock water sources such as water troughs to reduce the use of streams by cattle and other livestock for water. Implement a comprehensive livestock husbandry program including appropriate and timely inoculations and de -worming to minimize the risk of contracting and/or spreading disease to other livestock, humans, and wildlife. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES MANAGEMENT California red -legged frog Managing the intensity and timing of livestock grazing is important in managing waterways and upland habitat for the California red -legged frog (CRLF) as it has important consequences in terms of emergent vegetation and water quality important for breeding. Maintaining stockponds and controlling non-native predators are also important factors in protecting and enhancing habitat for CRLF. In general, livestock use of stockponds is beneficial for CRLF NI. Appropriate timing and grazing intensity around stockponds can produce positive ecological benefits on vegetation cover, nutrient levels, and turbidity conducive to CRLF breeding and subsistence. For more specific management recommendations, please reference Attachment -D to this plan [10] 411Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 San Francisco garter snake Management for California red -legged frog is also beneficial to San Francisco garter snake. Use of vegetation and/or fencing off portions of ponds to provide adequate escape habitat during the frog mating season (Dec to March) and San Francisco garter snake breeding season (March to June and September to October) and young frog emergence period (July to September) can be beneficial for both species. Managing surrounding upland habitats for a mosaic of microhabitats (some open grassland, some brush, some downed woody debris areas, etc.) can also be beneficial for successful management of San Francisco garter snake. Choris' Popcorn Flower Choris' popcorn flower is an annual herb found in coastal prairie and coastal scrub habitats in San Mateo and portions of Santa Cruz County, listed by CNPS as "fairly endangered". The species is at risk from urban development, however, under rangeland conditions, primary threats to the species result from foot traffic/trampling and competition from non-native plants/annual grasses [11]. Choris' popcorn flower typically blooms from March -June 111] and will benefit from the reduction of annual/non-native vegetation through timed livestock grazing prior to bloom (December -February). Once flowers have dropped seed, livestock grazing may commence, typically in July. Continue to monitor for presence of the specie and note any changes in distribution and abundance of known populations. Adjust timing of grazing as necessary to promote reproduction. If trampling or vehicle traffic is noted to impact the Choris' popcorn flower, temporary fencing may be installed to protect populations. Figure -10: Choris' popcorn flower is a rare, native annual herb found in multiple locations throughout the Toto Ranch. Special attention should be paid to avoid populations of Choris' popcorn flower when implementing projects and routine maintenance on the Ranch. Implement BMPs as necessary to protect existing populations. 42 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 EXHIBIT -H Map of Sensitive Resources Redacted 43 1 Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL Available forage production has been impacted by non -palatable invasive plant species resulting in reduced germination of desirable forage. Invasive plants decrease forage productivity, impact livestock health, impact wildlife habitat value, and create significant fiscal impacts to the landowner/lessee. Implementing an integrated approach to controlling pest plants is critical to the success of improving forage production and quality in grazed pastures. To prevent an increase in the current extent of invasive vegetation and avoid the introduction of new invasive species on the Ranch, the landowner should manage the ranch with the minimum goal of containing the weed infestation to its current extent and preventing the introduction of new invasive species. Invasive plant control methods must be consistent with the District's IPM program and all invasive species treatment must adhere to Midpen's Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) and follow BMPs prescribed in the IPMP. The following recommended practices are designed to reduce the presence of invasive vegetation, protect soil and water quality, and promote beneficial forage production. ■ Adjust the stocking rate in order to maintain a minimum of two -three inches of beneficial, vegetation ground cover at all times. ■ Application of a selective broadleaf herbicide in the spring can be an effective strategy for the control of purple starthistle and wooly distaff thistle, particularly when treating large infestations that are not easily controlled through manual methods. Follow-up inspection and manual removal of late germinating plants during the summer is can help control late germinating plants following initial herbicide treatment. A pest control recommendation must be issued from a Pest Control Advisor for any herbicide application on the property. ■ Manually remove wooly distaff by digging or cutting out the plant at least five inches below the soil surface before they begin to flower. After flowering, the plants should be bagged and removed from site as seeds will continue to mature and ripen after the plant has been cut. ■ Mowing can be used to manage invasive thistles, provided it is well timed and used on plants with a high branching pattern. Mowing at early growth stages results in increased light penetration and rapid regrowth of the weed. If plants branch from near the base, regrowth will occur from recovering branches. Repeated mowing of plants too early in their life cycles (rosette or bolting stages) or when branches are below the mowing height will not prevent seed production, as flowers will develop below the mower cutting height. Plants with a high branching pattern are easier to control, as recovery will be greatly reduced. Even plants with this growth pattern must be mowed in the late spiny or early flowering stage to be successful. An additional mowing may be necessary in some cases. Be sure to mow well before thistles are in flower to prevent seed spread. ■ Prioritize thistle removal where the likelihood of seed spread is high such as road sides, cattle trails and loafing areas. 44IPage Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ■ French broom is limited on the Ranch and best controlled early as seeds remain viable in the soil for decades. Once well established, removal is extremely resource intensive. Pulling shrubs with weed wrenches is effective for broom removal in small infestations. The weed wrench removes the entire mature shrub, eliminating re -sprouting. ■ Carefully monitor areas where outside feed is brought in for new invasive species and remove new weeds before they become established. If feasible, feed Certified Weed Free Hay or locally sourced hay to minimize the risk of introducing new invasive plant species. ■ Do not import outside soil or fill material. It is often contaminated with invasive species and is not consistent with Easement terms. ■ Be aware of seed transport on ranch equipment and clean vehicles/equipment as needed. All personnel working in infested areas shall take appropriate precautions to not carry or spread weed seed or plant and soil diseases outside of the infested area. Such precautions will consist of, as necessary based on site conditions, cleaning of soil and plant materials from tools, equipment, shoes, clothing, or vehicles prior to entering or leaving the site. ■ Contact the local Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for funding and technical assistance to help with integrated pest management practices. Onion Grass is present on Toto Ranch. Control options are limited, though effective measures include fertilizing native vegetation and maintaining an abundance of natural forage to outcompete onion grass. Close foliar removal by hand clipping or line trimming at 3-5 week intervals has proven to reduce onion grass by up to 70 percent [16] Implement an integrated approach described above to identifying and treating invasive plants on the Ranch that are impacting forage production and grassland health including but not limited to coyote brush, yellow starthistle, wooly distaff thistle, Italian thistle, bull thistle and onion grass. Work with Midpen, UCCE and/or local NRCS or RCD to determine best options and timing for specific treatments. ADDITIONAL/SMALL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION Small domestic livestock including but not limited to sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, llamas/alpacas, and horses should be confined to the designated Agricultural Lease area. Well established infrastructure including corrals, water sources, flight pens, coops, etc. exist within the Agricultural Lease and are suitable for the production of small domestic livestock/poultry. Domestic livestock such as sheep, goats, and chickens often attract natural predators that may inadvertently affect cattle grazing on the rangeland pastures. As such, small domestic livestock should be confined to enclosed pens/barns at night to minimize the risk of predation. Production of "pasture pork" or raising of domestic pigs should be limited to pens on flat areas within the Agricultural Lease area to minimize runoff of waste and reduce the risk of impacts to water quality. 45IPage Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 VIII. Improvements and Maintenance Recommendations Budget Fence Repair and Installation Install a new barbed wire livestock fence to separate Field -3 into two (2) separate pastures. Full replacement of west and south property line fences is recommended over time. Partial replacement of significantly damaged/failing sections may also be completed as an alternate to full replacement. Replacement of the west boundary fence should be prioritized over the south boundary fence, though work may be completed over several years. While 5 -strand barbed wire fence is more effective, a wildlife friendly fence using 4 -strand barbed wire with a smooth bottom wire is also effective, though the smooth bottom wire is susceptible to damage and may require frequent repairs. Either style fence can be made wildlife friendly if the bottom wire is situated an average of 16"-18" above the ground allowing wildlife to cross underneath while functioning to contain livestock. West boundary fenceline along State Route -1 should be 6 -strand barbed wire fence to ensure cattle do not get out on the highway. Below is a list of proposed fencing improvements for the Toto Ranch. A. West Property Boundary Fence Replace (entire replacement) B. Field -3 Cross -Fence Install C. South Property Boundary Fence Replace (entire replacement) D. Removal of Old Fence/Unused Fence/MIG E. Partial fencing of ponds may be considered as an adaptive management strategy for CRLF and SFGS F. Two Additional water tanks in the windmill area (if water yield increases) G. Two new westerly troughs off driveway for Pasture 1 & 2. Road Repairs and Maintenance Most roads on the ranch are in good condition and require little annual maintenance. The two (2) sections of road that show signs of rutting/gully activity should be repaired to maintain road integrity and protect downstream water quality. Additionally, if the Field -3 spring is developed and road surface dries out, a culvert or ford crossing should be installed and minor grading/brushing will be required to make road passable. Special attention should be Choris' popcorn flower near this location and potential impacts to the population should be mitigated for. While the access driveway between State Route -1 and the Agricultural Lease area provides year-round access and is adequate for land management and the agricultural operation, landowner may wish to improve driveway to accommodate recreational use and the heavy vehicle traffic by the tenant's field day and workshop guests. A. Road Repairs (access road south of Agricultural Lease) (see Exhibit G, #3) B. Road Repairs (Field -3) (see Exhibit G, #1 and #2) C. Road Repairs (Driveway) 1Page g Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 Water Infrastructure Improvements Water infrastructure improvements will enhance livestock distribution and overall forage utilization as well as potentially extending the grazing season, which is currently affected by the lack of stockwater during summer/fall months. Reference the Proposed Infrastructure map for location of proposed water system improvements. A. Replace Plastic Water Troughs (In and around Agricultural Lease) B. Install New Waterline and Trough North of Agricultural Lease C. Field -3 Water System (spring, pump, tank, pipe, and troughs) a. Project to be completed if no negative long term impacts to Choris' popcorn flower D. Ensure wildlife escape ramps are present in all troughs E. Any spring developments must adhere to the District's wildlife friendly spring development designs. Vegetation Management Implement an integrated approach that is consistent with the District's IPM Program to controlling invasive vegetation with a focus on wooly distaff thistle, French broom, onion grass, and coyote brush. Manual, mechanical, biological, and chemical control measures may be implemented including but not limited to timed grazing, mowing, hand digging, herbicide application, reseeding, and burning/torching. Estimated annual costs for treatment of invasive vegetation will vary based on presence and distribution of invasive vegetation and treatment methods. Develop a strategic plan for control of coyote brush on the Toto Ranch with a focus on ridge tops, around stockponds, and populations of Choris' popcorn flower. Coyote brush is well established in many of the steeper canyons and has expanded into the ridgetops and open grassland areas over time. Coyote brush encroachment in the grasslands has reduced forage production by 50 to 80 percent in many pastures. The landowner has attempted mechanical control of the coyote brush by mowing, primarily in the front pastures between the Agricultural Lease and State Route -1. The mowing has reduced the size of the individual plants but has done little to reduce the quantity and percent cover of the coyote brush. A coyote brush encroachment management plan should be developed for the Ranch. Future brush control efforts, including chemical control, should be considered following the recommendations in the coyote brush management plan to maintain the estimated carrying capacity. 471 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 a) a) 00 rD cu cu cu rD 00 3 rD cu 0 0 1. 0) 00 00 a) 00 Toto Ranch - Pro posed Infrastructure Area Excluded From Rangeland Management Plan Fe nce {Existing/Propose d) Na tu ral Barrier Q Q Water Distribution Line {Ex isting/Proposed) 0 Water Tro ugh (Existing/Proposed [Exact Lo cation TBD]) Wa fer Tank {Existing/Propose d [Ex act Location TBD]) Spring (Ex isting/Pro po sed) Well Midp eninsul a Region al Open Sp ace District (MROSGr) August 2018 ® narlen 0 0 .25 05 M IDr EMINSULL OPEN SPACE While the Disirid strive s to u se the hest ava ilable digital m, aba secrates do na i •epre se nr o le ga l ecrv ey a no a -e mere ly a gra phs ;flu e floe of geographic feat ur es . S1N]W]AOHdWI 321f11Jf1211SV213NI 43SOdOdd — I-1I8IHX3 I, ivawqueuay Attachment 1 IX. Recommended Monitoring Protocols The monitoring program for the grazed rangeland pastures on the Toto Ranch is designed to ensure that the specific rangeland uses are in compliance with this Rangeland Management Plan, the agricultural conservation easement, and the land stewardship goals and objectives. It is recommended that the landowner/operator establish a routine monitoring protocol for the Toto Ranch. The following guidelines outline suggested monitoring criteria: ➢ Monitor forage utilization and livestock distribution trends to ensure appropriate RDM remains on the ground to achieve desired resource management objectives, including soil stability and water quality. ➢ Monitor the condition of livestock infrastructure, including water systems, gates and fencing, to ensure conformity with the terms of the easement and to improve rangeland and grazing management practices. ➢ Monitor non-native invasive vegetation with an emphasis on location, distribution and abundance of plant species. Describe methods for treatment or control of invasive species (grazing, herbicide application, mowing, etc.) and vegetation response to treatment methods. ➢ Monitor ponds to ensure habitat for special status wildlife species free of invasive predators such as fish and/or bullfrogs. ➢ Monitor desirable vegetation including native grasses, wildflowers, and trees with an emphasis on location, distribution, and abundance. Describe any impacts, positive or negative, observed as a result of agricultural practices (farming and/or grazing). ➢ Monitor vegetation that was planted as part of restoration or remediation work (where applicable) with an emphasis on location, distribution, abundance, and survival rate. ➢ Natural climatic changes (drought, floods, fire, etc.), geologic process, and biologic cycles beyond the landowners control should be noted and described as applicable. ➢ Stocking rates, herd type, and duration of grazing should be noted where applicable. ➢ Monitor rangelands pastures that are grazed by horses. Annual point line monitoring for species composition in addition to RDM monitoring is recommended in Pastures #1, #2, and #3 to monitor potential changes in vegetation guilds. Monitoring observations can be used as a guideline for adaptive management changes, as needed, based on the results of annual monitoring. To evaluate the above listed monitoring criteria, several baseline photo -monitoring points can be retaken and a monitoring form completed for each site on an annual basis. Monitoring should occur in the fall prior to the first fall/winter rainfall of the year. Photos in Attachment -A to this plan can be utilized as photo monitoring points for the landowner/operator and be used as a reference on which to base 49IPage Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 future monitoring comparisons. A sample photo monitoring form can be found under Exhibit -G. Annual monitoring visits conducted by Midpen staff will document and photograph any concerns, trends, and general overall resource conditions observed throughout the property. Recommended Monitoring Items: ✓ Residual Dry Matter (RDM): RDM levels can be recorded using pounds per acre and measurements can be calculated or ocular estimates dependent on the skill set and experience of the monitor. RDM average standards are based on the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) prescribed grazing performance standards. The prescribed RDM standard for moderate grazing is an average minimum of 800-1,000 pounds per acre of dry matter (two to three inches of standing RDM) on slopes of 0 to 30 percent, and 1,000-1,200 pounds per acre of dry matter (three to four inches of standing RDM) on slopes greater than thirty percent. Leaving prescribed levels of RDM on the ground surface will provide a grassland seed crop for the following season, minimize the risk for soil erosion and sedimentation, and protect water quality. Please reference Attachment -B, 'Guidelines for Residual Dry Matter on Coastal and Foothill Rangelands in California', for more detailed information on RDM standards and data collection. RDM measurements should be taken in the fall of each year at sites that are exemplary of the average RDM level in a pasture. Areas that are heavily frequented by livestock or do not adequately represent the average RDM level in a given pasture should be exempt from data collection. The following is a list of areas that should be avoided when collecting RDM samples or measurements: a. Areas that have burned b. Roads c. Corrals, and associated lanes and holding fields/traps d. Sites with low soil fertility (rock outcrops, sandy soils) or high tree cover e. Areas within 150 feet of water sources, stockponds, supplemental feeding sites f. Areas subject to damage by wildlife such as feral pigs g. Areas that are or have been recently cultivated ✓ Plant Communities Observed: Include a list of the plant communities observed within view of the photo point for example annual grassland, woodlands, wetlands, etc. Note any measurable trends or transition between plant community types from the prior year. ✓ Invasive Species Observed: Include a list of observed invasive plant species noting relative abundance, location, and density. Note any differences from the prior year. ✓ Infrastructure: Identify infrastructure relevant to the grazing and/or agricultural operation (water troughs, tanks, fencing, irrigation lines) noting location, current condition and need for adjustments or repairs. 501 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ✓ Soil Erosion: Identify areas that are at risk for erosion or where soil loss has occurred as a result of surface water flow, wind, fire, or human activity. These sites may include gullies, bare ground exposure, landslides, ruts, or notable surface runoff. Note historic activity and any current activity. Recommend soil protection measures. ✓ Access Road Observations: Note condition of road including surface condition, vegetation cover, culverts, recent maintenance or grading, and water diversion measures that are in place. Identify any signs of erosion, rutting, or gullying on the road surface or below road, particularly downstream of channel crossings. ✓ Wildlife Observed: Identify wildlife species observed at location of the photo point including specie information and relative abundance. Observations of special status species shall be reported to the District Natural Resources Department to be included in annual reporting to regulatory agencies. ✓ Annual Precipitation: Note the rainfall, in total inches, for the season. Keeping annual precipitation records is important in determining whether rainfall amount and distribution were average, below average, or above average. In average and above average rainfall years the RDM performance standards should be met. In below average rainfall years, RDM performance standards may be exceeded, but not for more than a period of two consecutive years. Annual stocking rates and grazing duration should be adjusted annually to accommodate forage production and annual precipitation. 511 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 EXHIBIT - J GRAZING MONITORING CHECKLIST (SAMPLE) SITE NAME DATE PHOTO POINT MONITOR(S): MEASURED RAINFALL ( INCHES): [ ] < AVERAGE [ ] AVERAGE [ ] >AVERAGE MONITORING ITEMS: RESIDUAL DRY MATTER (RDM) Lbs. PER ACRE: 0-30% slope >30% slope Estimated [ ] Actual Measurement [ ] PLANT COMMUNITIES OBSERVED: [ ] Annual Grassland [ ] Mixed Forest [ ] Coyote Brush/Scrub [ ] Oak Woodland [ ] Aquatic Habitat [ ] Riparian Habitat [ ] Other Communities: [ ] Native Grasses: WILDLIFE OBSERVED: PLACE PHOTO HERE 52 1 Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 INFRASTRUCTURE / ROADS (Improvements, Condition, New Items, Future Concerns, etc.): PONDS /STREAMS /AQUATIC FEATURES (Access, Vegetation, Water Clarity, Culverts, Spillways, etc.): VEGETATION (Invasives, Natives, Thatch Amount, Encroachment, Plant Mortality, etc.): *Relative Abundances: 1 = 1-10 / 2 = 10-100 / 3 = 100+/ 4 = Dominant Vegetation Type EROSION CONCERNS (Gullying, Rilling, Slides, Surface Runoff, Bare Soil, etc.): GENERAL NOTES (Cattle info, Landscape Changes, etc.): *DISCUSSION ITEMS/CONCERNS*: 531 Page Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 REFEERENCES 1. Resource Management Policies, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (PDF). https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource_Management_Policies.pdf. Pages 53-57. Accessed 07/12/2017. 2. Agenda Item 7. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors Meeting #12-36. R-12-109. November 14, 2012. 3. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION: Markegard, Erik (grazing tenant). June 2017. Personal communication with Clayton Koopmann. 4. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION: Markegard, Doniga (grazing tenant). June 2017. Personal communication with Clayton Koopmann. 5. Annual Crop Report, San Mateo County. 2016. San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner's Office. 6. National Cooperative Soil Survey. Soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov. 2014. 7. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007. San Mateo County, California (CA041) Soil Data, (Version 5, Dec 10, 2007). 8. Soil Survey of Marin County, California, Volume 38. Soil Conservation Service. 1985. 9. PERSONAL OBSERVATION: Koopmann, Clayton. April 2017 site visit. 10. California Invasive Plant Council, Invasive Plant Inventory Database. http://www.cal- ipc.org/paf. August 2014. 11. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination of threatened status for the California red -legged frog. Federal Register 61(101):25813-25833. 12. Managing Rangelands to Benefit California Red -Legged Frogs and California Tiger Salamanders. Lawrence D. Ford, Pete A. Van Hoorn, Devii R. Rao, Norman J. Scott, Peter C. Trenham, and James W. Bartolome. Chapters 4, 5, and 8. September 2013. 13. Agricultural Management Plan. Sage and Associates. 2016. 14. Guidelines for Residual Dry Matter on Coastal and Foothill Rangelands in California. University of California Cooperative Extensions (UCCE). Publication 8092. 2002. 15. California Natural Diversity database last accessed online January 2018. 16. "Onion Grass (Romulea rosea) Management in Pastures". Department of Environment and Industries, Melbourne (Victoria, Australia). Note Number AG1839. December 2009. PLAN PREPARED BY: 54 1 Rangeland Management Plan - Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 Having prepared this Rangeland Management Plan (RMP), I certify that it is consistent with the purpose and requirements, as set forth in the relevant RMP Provisions. As with any plan, this RMP should be viewed as a living document, subject to periodic update and review as needed to reflect changing on -farm conditions over time. The RMP should be updated at least every ten years, or in the event of significant changes in the use, management, or ownership of the Property. August 30, 2018 Claytdth W, Koopmann Date Clayton W. Koopmann, B.S., Agricultural Management & Rangeland Resources; Owner Koopmann Rangeland Consulting; California Board of Forestry Registered Certified Rangeland Manager #100 Koopmann Rangeland Consulting Rangeland Resource Management Services 551 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT - A 2017 Baseline Photos: Toto Ranch Photo Point Location Map (Baseline photos can be used as reference for establishing photo -monitoring points annually by the landowner. Long term trends can be noted when comparing the baseline photo updates against the original baseline photos.) 561 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT - B Guidelines for Residual Dry Matter Monitoring University of California 571 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT - C Vegetation Composition Specie List (Observed): Toto Ranch 581 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT - D Recommended management approach and best management practices for California red -legged frogs on the Toto Ranch Managing Rangelands to Benefit California Red -Legged Frogs & California Tiger Salamanders — Chapters 4, 5 & 8 59 1 Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 0 t1 0 m cc 0 F v o 0 b CO 0 Toto Ranch San Gre..rio "la', Greg Toto Ranch and Surrounding Area Toto Ranch MROSD Preserves Other Protected Open Space or Park Lands 'Ttna a QPppa @ppo Opa6p PFPOPFTO Redgate Ranch Area of Detail Djerassi Resident Artists da Coffee CPpal Opoa Opa6o ATTACHMENT 2 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Land Trust (MROSD) Private Property e Non MROSD Conservation September, 2012 or Agricultural Easement Miles REGIONAL OPEN SPACE 0 1 2 While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ., .ncnArnn ?n?nm 71 m..a T r.,P,- ,-k C: P..rl,• (;•\ Pr., Pasture Pasture 3 Pasture 1 Pasture 6 Toto Ranch Grazing Lease Area Area of Detail 1 Attachme `Redwoode City ►� East PoI Alto Palo./Alto 1017 Mountain View Lo Altos MROSD Preserves Agricultural Lease Area Grazing Pastures Unpaved All -Season Road Unpaved Seasonal Road Abandoned/ Unmaintained Road Milesi Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) 1/30/2020 0.25 0.5 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. c .. PI,...\TP P.....,..,.,J I..F. L Z L i Toto Ranch - Existing and Proposed Infrastructure F7l Area Excluded From Rangeland Management Plan Fence (Existing/Proposed) Natural Barrier Water Distribution Line (Existing/Proposed) Q ® Water Trough (Existing/Proposed [Exact Location TBD]) Water Tank (Existing/Proposed [Exact Location TBD]) Spring (Existing/Proposed) We l l ATTACHMENT 4 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) August 2018 Milesi 0 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE 0.25 0.5 While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. .,PI.,..\TP P, -,,AP., Toto Ranch - Road Repairs Road Repair Locations ATTACHMENT 5 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) August 2017 ® Miles 0 0.25 0.5 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Attachment 6 R EG1 ONAL OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-12-109 Meeting 12-36 November 14, 2012 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Approval of the Proposed Purchase of the Peninsula Open Space Trust (Toto Ranch) Property located at 20800 Cabrillo Highway (State Highway 1) in unincorporated San Mateo County (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 081-060-010, 081-060-100, 081-060-110 and 081-060-120) as an addition to Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve; Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan; and Approval of a Categorical Exemption in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in this report. 2. Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the purchase of the Peninsula Open Space Trust (Toto Ranch) Property and approving the related Assignment of Grazing Lease. 3. Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan contained in this report. 4. Temporarily designate the Property as the Gordon Ridge Area of Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. 5. Withhold dedication of the Property as public open space at this time. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) is proposing to purchase the 952.49 - acre Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) (Toto Ranch) property, at a price of $3,500,000 and reimburse POST for recent structure and infrastructure repairs and improvements on the property not to exceed $275,000 for a total purchase and reimbursement cost not to exceed $3,775,000. As part of this transaction, the District is also proposing to continue leasing the residential and rangeland portions of the property to the existing tenant under an assigned grazing lease and a District residential rental agreement. The following report presents a description of the POST (Toto Ranch) property, the Coastside Protection Plan process, a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, the environmental review, the purchase terms and conditions, and financial considerations. R-12-109 Attachment 6 Page 2 DISCUSSION The 952.49 -acre POST property being considered for purchase by the District is located approximately one mile southwest of the Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve) along the east side of the Cabrillo Highway (State Highway 1), approximately 11/2 miles north of the community of San Gregorio and approximately nine miles south of the city of Half Moon Bay. POST purchased the property from the Scutchfield family in 2008. The property is within the Coastside Protection Area, an area that was annexed into the District boundaries in 2004. Property Description (see attached map) The POST (Toto Ranch) property is located along the east side of Highway 1 with over one mile of scenic frontage along the highway. The community of San Gregorio and State Highway 84 are located approximately 1.5 miles to the south. Tunitas Creek Road is located just north of the northwest corner of the property. The District's 708 -acre Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve is located roughly one mile to the north east and the Driscoll Ranch area of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve is located approximately 2.5 miles to the east. The property is surrounded by private properties with several large acre ranches located to the south and east. The coastal landscape of the Toto Ranch property consists of grazed rolling grasslands and coastal scrub, steep brushy riparian canyons, and lush creek corridors that represent the great diversity of the coastal San Mateo County. Gordon Ridge rises to a height of just over 880 feet along the southerly boundary. From the ridgelines, the property possesses panoramic views of the San Mateo coastline, the surrounding Tunitas and San Gregorio watershed lands, and the western Santa Cruz Mountains. The property is bounded by Tunitas Creek and Dry Creek, a tributary of Tunitas Creek, along its northerly boundary. In addition, the upper headwaters of a tributary which flows into the San Gregorio watershed is located in the south east comer of the property. The property is central to the open, rural landscape of the region, whether seen from the two nearby Preserves, or Highway 1 and the coastal lowlands to the west. Resource inventories performed by POST and District staff have revealed a wide variety of plant and animal habitats. The property is dominated by open grasslands with native perennial grasses and coastal scrub, with riparian woodlands shading the creeks. With close to 9,000 feet of perennial stream frontage, stock ponds, and numerous springs and seeps, the property possesses significant watershed and riparian values. There are four year- round ponds and at least four smaller seasonal ponds located on the property, with the two largest ponds situated in the southeastern and northwestern quadrants. The ponds, springs and seeps provide potential breeding habitat for the rare and federally -listed as threatened California red -legged frog. The lower watershed of Tunitas Creek, including Dry Creek, forms the northern boundary of the property. Tunitas Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead trout and coho salmon, which are state- and federally -listed species. The property provides a rich resource for many wild animals, including mammals such as mountain lions, coyotes, and bobcats. A wide variety of birds frequent this landscape, from raptors such as red-tailed hawks, Golden Eagles, Cooper's hawks, white tailed kite, peregrine falcon, and sharp -shinned hawks, to insect -eating species such as the yellow warbler. Annual and native perennial grasslands and coastal scrub habitat includes coastal oatgrass, coffeeberry, coyote brush, sticky monkey flower, sage, lupine, and poison oak. The property's creeks support dense riparian habitat, including R-12-109 Attachment 6 Page 3 alders and willows. Several eucalyptus groves are also present, which appear to host nesting raptors. Use and Development Vehicular access to the property is from a paved access road from Highway 1, which becomes gravel -surfaced after the first quarter of a mile leading to the residential and ranch area located just over 3/4 of a mile east of Highway 1. This road is on the approximate alignment of the historic Star Hill Road, which traverses from the ranch area along Gordon Ridge to the easterly boundary of the property. In general, the existing seasonal ranch roads accessing the property are in fair to good condition. The ponds on the property provide water for the cattle and other livestock. Prior to POST's 2008 purchase, the property was owned by the Scutchfield family who owned the property since the late 1970s as a family retreat and for cattle grazing. Eric Markegard, the tenant, has lived on the property for twenty-five years and is a sixth generation rancher. The property has been in continuous use as a farm for almost 120 years. The property was originally owned by Alexander Gordon, a State assemblyman, who in 1872 built Gordon's Chute near the mouth of Tunitas Creek, an ill-fated ramp for sliding farm goods from the top of the cliffs to ships anchored in the rolling surf. Gordon's Chute was blown away in a heavy storm in 1885. The Machado family, originally from Portugal, settled the property in the late 1800s, and ranched on the property for close to 100 years. The property was historically grazed with 60 to 70 head of Holstein Dairy cows and some of the hillsides were dry farmed with hay and oats. The original house built on the property burned down in 1933 and the current two-story, 2,620 square foot ranch house was built later that year. The Markegard family leases the property and resides in the ranch house (the ranch house rental terms are discussed in the Terms and Conditions section of this report). Other buildings include a modern 4,390 square foot metal -sided barn, a wooden barn, and several small outbuildings and sheds. All buildings are located in a nine -acre building envelope area identified within a Conservation Easement currently held by the Coastside Land Trust, discussed further below. The ranch is currently used primarily to produce grass-fed beef cattle, and for residential purposes. Other grazing uses on the property include a small number of dairy cows, grass-fed sheep, goats, and pastured pigs. The Markegards sell beef, pork and lamb through a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) purchasing program. A small number of dairy cows produce milk as part of a cooperative Herd Share arrangement. The Markegards hold Ranch Day events and workshops on the property during the year. The workshops include topics such as grass fed and free range grazing techniques, watershed restoration, permaculture education, and cheese making and milk production methods. POST is currently in the process of addressing the property's most pressing maintenance needs, in coordination with the District's Real Property, Operations and Natural Resource Department staff as well as the tenants. As discussed in the Terms and Conditions section of this report, a condition of the proposed purchase is POST's satisfactory completion of this in -progress maintenance work. Maintenance to the ranch house included deck replacement, interior and exterior lead treatment and painting, repair and upgrade of the residential water system and septic systems, and upgrade of two existing agricultural wells, including the installation of a R-12-109 Attachment 6 Page 4 windmill to improve stock watering and ranch infrastructure, and reduce electricity costs. Ranch roads were maintained, and the paved section of the access driveway is slated to be patched and resurfaced after hauling is complete. Three surface dump or debris sites were cleared and removed from the property. POST has employed Coastside contractors, where possible. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Grant The Markegards, in coordination with POST and the District, recently entered into a Farm Bill Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) grant contract with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Over the next three years, this grant contract will provide $64,925 in funding assistance to the tenant to improve the grassland grazing conditions on the property by mechanical mowing of coyote brush and the installation livestock cross -fencing, which is expected to increase the grazing carrying capacity and improve grassland biodiversity, thereby improving the economic feasibility of continued agriculture use on the property. Under the grant contract conditions, after completing the grant funded improvements, the tenant is responsible for maintenance of these improvements for their lifespan. These activities are currently underway and ongoing, and the District's proposed purchase will not affect their implementation or completion. As part of their standard procedures, NRCS reviews the environmental impacts of projects proposed for grant funding under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NRCS adopted a Finding of No Significant Impact for the entire EQIP in December 2009. NRCS also completed an Environmental Evaluation specifically for the project and found no environmental effect on endangered and threatened species. Similar to District resource management standards, the grant contract includes performance standards requiring avoidance of suitable red -legged frog habitat areas, and removing brush during bird nesting season. REAL PROPERTY COMMITTEE The District's Real Property Committee, a standing committee of the Board of Directors, held a public meeting on the property (within the Coastside Protection Area) in order to familiarize themselves with the property and to receive public input on the proposed purchase. This meeting was held on October 15, 2012, after notice was distributed to property owners of land located adjacent to or surrounding the property, Coastside public officials, community -interest groups, non-profit land trusts, conservation -oriented organizations, elected officials, government agencies and government -sponsored organizations within the Coastside Protection Area. The Markegard family and a POST representative attended the meeting. No members of the public attended the meeting. At the meeting, staff described the property and how it would be managed as open space and agricultural land, the proposed preliminary use and management plan, and the proposed purchase terms. COASTSIDE PROTECTION PROGRAM PROCESS As part of the annexation process, the Service Plan and subsequent conditions approved by LAFCo both established a number of policies and procedures for conducting the Coastside Protection Program (Program). The Program now guides the District's purchase, as well as the use and management of open space land within the Coastside Protection Area. The proposed purchase of the Toto Ranch property described in this Report and the accompanying Preliminary R-12-109 Attachment 6 Page 5 Use and Management Plan are consistent with the policies and procedures contained in the Program. The Coastside Protection Program requires consultation with interested public agencies, officials, and interested organizations to solicit input into the planning process prior to the Board's consideration of purchasing the property. On September 25, 2012, five members of the San Mateo County Farm Bureau, including a neighboring property owner to the north east, visited the property with District staff, the Markegards, and a POST staff member and discussion ensued regarding the grazing uses, historical uses, and ranch infrastructure. Staff also made a presentation to the full Farm Bureau Board on October 1, 2012. The Farm Bureau was supportive of the project and provided additional information about past agricultural use of the property. On October 15, 2012, the project was presented to and discussed by members of the San Mateo County Agricultural Advisory Committee. District Staff assured both the Farm Bureau and the Agricultural Advisory Committee that agricultural concerns would be carefully considered in future planning for the property, and that the decision making process would include additional opportunities for their participation and input. USE AND MANAGEMENT Conservation Easement In 2007, a conservation easement was recorded over the property to protect the scenic and natural habitat, agricultural production, and open space values of the property. The conservation easement is currently held by Coastside Land Trust, and is anticipated to be assigned to POST after purchase of the property by the District. The easement provides for a 9 -acre improved area of the property (where all of the existing improvements are currently located), and allows for the replacement of the main residence not to exceed 5,000 square feet, recreational improvements not to exceed 10,000 square feet, and 25,000 square feet of agricultural improvements, for a total 40,000 square feet of improvements in the aggregate (see Exhibit B). The District's use and management is expected to be consistent with this easement. Planning Considerations The POST (Toto Ranch) property is subject to the Land Conservation Agreement (Agreement) between San Mateo County and Donald Scutchfield under the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (also known as the Williamson Act) recorded in 1985. San Mateo County filed and recorded a Notice of Non -Renewal of the Agreement affecting a small portion of the property in 2011, which will terminate in 2020, and earlier this year, POST recently filed a Notice of Non - Renewal of the Agreement affecting the remaining property, which will terminate in 2021. In addition to agriculture, the Agreement provides for the compatible uses of open space, recreation, and wildlife habitat area. Staff notified the California Department of Conservation (CDC) of the proposed POST (Toto Ranch) property purchase, as required. No response from CDC was received as of this writing. In the past, CDC staff has recommended the District consider filing for contract nonrenewal when acquiring land subject to a Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement; however, the nonrenewal process is already underway. R-12-109 Attachment 6 Page 6 The current San Mateo County General Plan designation for the property is Agriculture, and the zoning is Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development (PAD/CD). Surrounding private properties are also zoned PAD/CD. District staff requested that San Mateo County review the conformity of the District's proposed property purchase with the County General Plan. As of this writing, the San Mateo County Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct its conformity review on November 14, 2012. County staff has not previously expressed any concerns about the conformance of the purchase with the General Plan. The property is comprised of two legal parcels and has a potential development density of seven residential sites under San Mateo County regulations. Development of the property for residential purposes would be feasible, as much of the property is accessible and there are many relatively level building sites along or near ridgetops. However, the property is subject to the conservation easement, which restricts subdivision of the property, and the Williamson Act contract limits uses to those compatible with commercial agriculture. The property's upper ridgelines are visible from the Highway 1, a state -designated Scenic Highway. According to the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) 2008 update, the property contains approximately 669 acres of Grazing Land, and the remaining property consists of Other Land (steep riparian and scrubland unused for agriculture). These areas have not been used for grazing or agricultural crops historically. Although some of the ridge lands suitable for grazing may have been dry farmed historically, these lands are currently fallowed with no obvious farming infrastructure present. The Preliminary Use and Management Plan contained in this report specifies that the District will continue to lease the balance of property for conservation grazing to maintain and enhance native biodiversity, reduce wildfire risk by controlling fuel loads, and promote the local, historical agricultural economy. Over the next two to three years, District staff will prepare a Rangeland Management Plan and associated longer -term grazing lease, for future Use and Management Committee and Board consideration, after soliciting tenant and public input. POST commissioned a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prior to purchase and District staff has conducted due diligence investigations and inspections of the property, including a review of San Mateo County's property records and files. No information of concern was noted in reviewing this information. Preliminary Use and Management Plan (Next Steps) The principal purpose of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan is to establish a status quo approach to land management to be effective in the interim between purchase and the completion of a subsequent long-term plan. This plan outlines the uses that can occur on this property in the near term, and the management methods for ensuring their compatibility with each other and with neighboring properties. It also outlines actions to protect and balance the agricultural and natural resource potential, and initiates activities needed to inform long-term planning and management. The Preliminary Use and Management Plan below will take effect upon the close of escrow, and remain effective until a long-term plan is developed for the property. The Preliminary Use and Management Plan includes continuation of grazing under the provisions of a grazing lease, R-12-109 Attachment 6 Page 7 continuation of residential use as a month to month rental, resource management, posting signs, and securing the site, as described more fully below. All mitigation measures contained in the Coastside EIR are incorporated into this Preliminary Use and Management Plan. Name Public Access: Signs and Site Security: Structures and Improvements: Resource Management: Rangeland Management: Temporarily designate the POST (Toto Ranch) property as the Gordon Ridge Area of the Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. Refer the property to the Board's Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee for permanent naming. Designate the property as closed to general public use. Allow public access through Ranch Days, workshops, and ranch visitation conducted by the tenant consistent with historical use patterns, subject to case -by -case District permit requirements. Allow docent -led hikes, after evaluating the compatibility of limited public access in light of existing on -site factors including grazing, natural resources, temporary parking/staging needs, and road and trail conditions. Install private property, closed area, and preserve boundary signs where appropriate. Rent the residential structures under District month -to -month residential rental agreements. Evaluate the feasibility and/or desirability of alternative longer -term residential occupancy arrangements and return to the Board for review and approval. Evaluate the historic integrity of the ranch house. Maintain the residence in a habitable condition. Maintain the existing water system providing domestic, irrigation, and stock watering in serviceable condition. Conduct a detailed resource assessment of the property, covering such topics as vegetation management, special status species, ponds, and sedimentation. Use conservation grazing as a vegetation management tool to reduce invasive weeds and encourage native grasses within the property's grasslands, as part of overall rangeland management methods. Conduct other interim invasive plant and animal management activities consistent with the District's policies and practices. Continue grazing under the existing grazing lease being assigned to the District. Upon preparation of a Rangeland Management Plan and before lease expiration, enter into a long-term conservation grazing lease in accordance with the District's Coastside Service Plan, the District's Grazing Management Policy, and the Rangeland Management Plan. Collaborate with tenants on obtaining and administering grants on rangeland and resource enhancements, as well as exploring the feasibility of alternative methods of R-12-109 Attachment 6 Page 8 brush management. After public review and comment in accordance with the Farm Bureau Memorandum Of Understanding and Coastside Protection Plan, present the long-term grazing lease and Rangeland Management Plan for future review and approval by the District Board of Directors. Conservation Use and manage the property consistent with the existing Conservation Easement: Easement. Coordinate with easement holder regarding any proposed physical alterations to the property prior to implementation, so that they may assess consistency with easement provisions. Patrol: Routinely patrol the property using existing ranch roads and patrol easements. Wildfire Fuel Conduct conservation grazing, as noted above, as well as other standard Management: District -wide fuel management practices. Further assess plant communities on the property to determine wildfire management needs and consult with San Mateo County and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in developing a site -specific fuel modification and management program as part of the subsequent planning process. Fences and Working with the tenant, ensure that existing gates and fences are Gates: maintained and repaired as necessary to prevent livestock movement onto adjacent private property or onto Highway 1. Install new fencing in accordance with the existing EQIP grant scope. Install new gates as necessary to prevent unauthorized vehicular entry at the property. Monitor interior fence installation by tenant under the EQIP grant, and evaluate additional fencing needs as part of developing the long-term Rangeland Management Plan. Roads and Maintain existing roads to the ranch house compound in serviceable, year - Trails: round condition, and maintain the remaining existing roads for seasonal use. Implement maintenance and minor erosion and sediment control measures for access roads in accordance with District and Service Plan standards. Prepare a road and trail inventory of the entire property consistent with Service Plan requirements. Coastside Operate and manage the property in conformity with the provisions of the Service Plan: Service Plan for the Coastside Protection Program and the mitigation measures adopted pursuant to the Coastside Service Plan Environmental Impact Report. Site Safety No evidence of any recognized hazardous condition has been found on the Inspection: property. As with every situation involving older structures and past agricultural use, perform a thoughtful analysis of the specific working conditions before conducting all future maintenance and repairs. POST Site For a limited period and in accordance with the District's "Policies for Site Attachment 6 R-12-109 Page 9 Naming: Naming and Gift Recognition", allow POST to recognize significant donors through the naming of a single, specific location, land formation, trail, or other natural feature on the property. Williamson Comply with the existing Williamson Act contract during the nonrenewal Act: period. Dedication: Withhold dedication of the property as open space at this time. Subsequent As indicated under Structures and Improvements above, evaluate the Planning: possibility of entering into a long-term residential arrangement. Develop a long-term plan for the property, including more detailed plans for grazing, resource management, public access, road and trail management, and wildland fuel and fire management. Since the property is within the Coastside Protection Area and is subject to the Service Plan, the process for developing a long-term plan involves conducting more detailed resource assessments to inform resource management, range management, and public access plans, including consultation with appropriate government officials, agencies and organizations, and an extensive public input process. The long- term plan will be subject to further environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description The project consists of the acquisition of a 952.49 -acre property as an addition to the District's public open space preserve system and the concurrent adoption of a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the property. The land will be permanently preserved as open space and maintained in a natural condition. Pursuant to the Preliminary Use and Management Plan, the property will be closed to the general public, except for limited docent -led hikes and a continuation of the previously occurring Ranch Days and agricultural workshops under District case -by -case permits. The majority of the property will continue to be leased for cattle and other livestock grazing. The residence will continue to be rented. The structure and improvement repairs currently underway will be completed. Minor resource and wildfire fuel management activities will occur and existing ranch roads will be maintained according to District policies and standards. In accordance with the Coastal Service Plan, the project incorporates all of the Coastside Environmental Impact Report (EIR) mitigation measures that apply to land purchases within the Coastside Protection Area and is subject to the Coastal EIR mitigation monitoring program. CEQA Determination The District concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. It is categorically exempt from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) under Article 19, Sections 15301, 15316, 15317, 15325, and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as follows: R-12-109 Attachment 6 Page 10 Section 15301 exempts operation, repair, restoration, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The Preliminary Use and Management Plan specifies the property will be operated and maintained in a natural condition and there will be no expansion of use. The property will be closed to the general public, with only limited access for docent -led hikes and tenant Ranch Days; residential uses, and livestock grazing will continue; minor resource and wildfire fuel management activities will occur; existing ranch roads will be maintained according to District standards. The repairs currently in progress will be completed to address current standards of public health and safety and the residence will be maintained in a habitable condition. Section 15316 exempts the acquisition of land in order to create parks if the site is in a natural condition and the management plan proposes to keep the area in a natural condition. The Preliminary Use and Management Plan specifies that the land will not be developed and will remain in a natural condition. Section 15317 exempts the acceptance of fee interests in order to maintain the open space character of an area. The District will acquire fee interest and maintain the open space character of the area. No new development is proposed as part of this project. Section 15325 exempts transfers of ownership of interests in land in order to preserve open space and historical resources, and to allow continued agricultural use to occur. This acquisition will transfer fee ownership of the property to the District and ensure that the open space will be preserved, that continued agricultural use will occur, and that the historic resources will be preserved by implementing the Preliminary Use and Management Plan and by incorporating it into the District's open space preserve system. This proposed purchase qualifies under these four sections. The project is also exempt under section 15061(b)(3), as there is no possibility the actions may have a significant effect on the environment. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The bargain sale purchase price for the 952.49 -acre POST (Toto Ranch) property is $3,500,000, or approximately $3,675 per acre with a gift component of $3,644,000. The property, subject to the conservation easement, has a fair market appraised value of $7,144,000 as determined by an independent appraisal commissioned by POST. As part of this transaction, POST is completing repairs and minor improvements to the ranch house residence and residential water system and septic system, has removed surface dumps and debris sites, performed access and ranch road maintenance, and conducted agricultural well and stock watering infrastructure repairs (discussed in detail earlier in this report) at a cost not to exceed $275,000. These funds will be held in an escrow impound account and released upon completion of all required work. Any unused funds will be returned to the District. It is anticipated that these improvements will be completed by March 2013. The combined purchase and reimbursement costs are not to exceed $3,775,000. R-12-109 Attachment 6 Page 11 Eric and Doniga Markegard are the residential and grazing tenants on the property. The Markegard family currently rents the two-story ranch house under month -to -month rental agreements with POST that will terminate at close of escrow, and will be replaced with the District's standard monthly residential rental agreement under substantially the same terms. The residential rental agreement will be entered into under the General Manager's authority. The Markegards operate a grass-fed beef cattle operation on the property under a grazing lease agreement with POST with a two-year lease term with options for two one-year lease extensions, for a total of four years. As part of this transaction, POST's grazing lease will be assigned to the District. The initial lease term expires on November 1, 2014. As part of the Rangeland Management Plan development process, staff will evaluate the most advantageous residential leasing terms, taking into consideration the need for the Markegards to be co -located on the property to manage the day-to-day demands of their grass-fed beef and other livestock businesses. As specified in the Preliminary Use and Management Plan, the District will evaluate alternative long-term residential arrangements to best accomplish our goals for the long-term grazing and rangeland management of the property. The purchase agreement also includes a covenant that provides POST a period of five years to recognize significant donors through the naming of a specific location, land formation, trail, or other natural feature on the property, in accordance with the District's "Policies for Site Naming and Gift Recognition", which require Board Committee approval of naming proposals. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS FY2012-13 Budget for New Land Purchases: New Land Budget $9,000,000.00 Less: Land purchased this year ($1,839,600.00) POST (Toto Ranch) Property ($3,500,000.00) New Land Purchase Budget Remaining $3,660,400.00 Controller Mike Foster was consulted on this proposed purchase and has indicated that, considering cash flow and account balances, funds are available for this property purchase. Current Coastside Protection Area Fiscal Considerations The 952.49 -acre property is located in the District's Coastside Protection Area. The property is located within the service area of San Mateo County Fire, but not the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District. However, under the terms of the District/County Fire agreement, the District is not required to pay a County Fire fee when the District leases the property for a private agricultural or residential use, which is subject to a possessory interest tax. The Coastside Protection Program included a Fiscal Analysis conducted by Economics Research Associates confirming the feasibility of implementing that Program. To ascertain whether the conclusions made in the Fiscal Analysis are valid for this particular project, staff has researched R-12-109 Attachment 6 Page 12 the specific site conditions and expected costs associated with the proposed purchase and subsequent management of the property. This site assessment indicated that acquisition and management costs for the POST (Toto Ranch) property are expected to be consistent with the Fiscal Analysis projections. Furthermore, staff assessed the costs associated with this project and compared them to the Controller's most recent 15 -year projections of cash flow, property tax revenue, and operating expenses. Staff concludes that purchasing and managing this property will not result in any significant impact to the District's existing services, and that the District has the resources to sustain the lease and management of the property for the specified term. PUBLIC NOTICE An advance letter announcing the meeting date and the agenda for this public meeting, where the Board of Directors will consider purchasing this property, have been sent to property owners of land located adjacent to or surrounding the subject property, individuals requesting notification about this specific property, agenda subscribers, individuals requesting notification of proposed Coastside and Preserve projects, and Coastside public officials, community -interest groups, non- profit land trusts, conservation -oriented organizations, elected officials, government agencies and government -sponsored organizations within the Coastside Protection Area, as well as attendees of the October 9, 2012 Real Property Committee Meeting. The agenda and this report have been made available on the District's website. Accordingly, all notice required by the Brown Act and the Coastal Protection Program has been provided. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board of Directors, staff will proceed with close of escrow for the purchase of the property, and will undertake the next steps identified in the Preliminary Use and Management Plan contained in this report. Once developed, a long-term grazing lease, rangeland management plan, and long-term residential use recommendation will be brought to the Board for review and consideration at a later date. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Exhibit A — Property Map 3. Exhibit B — Improved Area Responsible Depailinent Head: Mike Williams, Real Property Manager Prepared by: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Elaina Cuzick, Real Property Specialist Sandy Sommer, Senior Planner Gretchen Laustsen, Planner II R-12-109 Attachment 6 Page 13 Contact person: Same as above Graphics prepared by: Alex Roa, GIS Technician Attachment 6 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 12-XX RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ASSIGMENT OF LEASES, AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER OR OTHER OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT TO DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION (TUNITAS CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - LANDS OF PENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST (TOTO RANCH) The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows: Section One. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby accept the offer contained in that certain Purchase Agreement between the Peninsula Open Space Trust and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a copy of which purchase agreement is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes the President or other appropriate officer to execute the Agreement and all related transactional documents on behalf of the District to acquire the real property described therein ("the POST Property"). Section Two. The General Manager, President of the Board of Directors, or other appropriate officer is authorized to execute Certificate of Acceptance for the Grant Deed on behalf of the District. Section Three. The General Manager or the General Manager's designee shall cause to be given appropriate notice of acceptance to the seller and to extend escrow if necessary. Section Four. The General Manager is authorized to expend up to $10,000.00 to cover the cost of title insurance, escrow fees, and other miscellaneous costs related to this transaction. Section Five. The General Manager and General Counsel are further authorized to approve any technical revisions to the attached Agreement and documents which do not involve any material change to any term of the Agreement or documents, which are necessary or appropriate to the closing or implementation of this transaction. Section Six. The purpose of this Section is to enable the District to reimburse its general fund for the cost of certain land acquisitions. The District wishes to finance certain of these real property acquisitions and expects to use tax-exempt debt, such as bonds, but a tax-exempt financing is not cost justified for the District unless the principal amount of the financing is large enough to justify the related financing costs. Consequently, it is the District's practice to buy property with its general funds and, when a tax-exempt financing is cost justified based on the aggregate value of acquisitions, to issue tax-exempt obligations to reimburse itself for previous expenditures of general funds. These general funds are needed for operating and other working capital needs of the District and are not intended to be used to finance property acquisitions on a long-term basis. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\TotoRanch\ExhibitA_TotoRanch_Board.mxd 2 Exhibit A: POST (Toto Ranch) and Surrounding Area POST (Tot`Ranch) San Gre rio POST (Toto Ranch) MROSD Preserves Other Protected Open Space or Park Lands Land Trust Private Property Non MROSD Conservation or Agricultural Easement Redgate Ranch Miles 1 0 Ar`e ofd DetaJ l �a 1or6ra aped @pea gpeee EPerETTe- Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) 0 November, 2012 REGIONAL OPEN SPACE 1 2 While the District staves to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. wide\TntnRanrh\FrhihitR Imrnnvaddrea Created Bv: aroa Exhibit B: Improved Area POST (Toto Ranch) 1 Building Envelope (8.89 acres) Map used to show building envelope for the 11/14/12 board meeting. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) 0 November, 2012 Feet 0 150 300 While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ATTACHMENT 7 RESOLUTION 20 - RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING THE AWARD OF A GRAZING LEASE TO ERIK AND DONIGA MARKEGARD (TOTO RANCH, TUNITAS CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE) WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) may, under the provisions of California Public Resources Code section 5540, lease property owned by the District; and WHEREAS, the lease of Toto Ranch for grazing and rangeland management purposes is compatible with park and open space purposes, and the lease of such premises is in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the District wishes to enter into a grazing lease of Toto Ranch to Erik and Doniga Markegard on the terms hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The General Manager is authorized to execute the Grazing Lease on behalf of the District. The General Manager, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, is authorized to make minor changes to the Grazing Lease that do not materially amend the terms and conditions thereof. 2. The General Manager is authorized to grant an extension of the Grazing Lease on the terms and conditions set forth in the Grazing Lease. The General Manager shall report any such extension of the Grazing Lease to the Board of Directors at the Board meeting immediately following the granting of the extension. The General Manager or designee is further authorized to sign and approve all other documents necessary or appropriate to entering into the Grazing Lease. * * * * * * k * * k * * * * * ;e * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on , 2020, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 1 ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary President Board of Directors Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: General Counsel I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held and called on the above day. District Clerk 2 Attachment 8 CEQA Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Prepared by: MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California 94022-1404 Contact: Aaron Peth (650) 691-1200 With technical assistance from: ii Harris & Associates 450 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 103 Salinas, California 93901 Contact: Wendy Young (831) 239-7910 Attachment 8 This document is printed on recycled paper with 30 percent post -consumer content. Harris & Associates. 2019. Initial Study for the Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project. October. (1800142001). Salinas, California. Prepared for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los Altos, California. Attachment 8 Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations v Document Preface vii Section 1 Project Description 1 1.1 Project Overview 1 1.2 Project Location 1 1.3 Project Area History and Background 2 1.4 Environmental Setting 3 1.4.1 Topography 3 1.4.2 Soils 3 1.4.3 Vegetation 4 1.4.4 Water Sources 4 1.4.5 Roadways 5 1.4.6 Fencing 5 1.4.7 Vegetation and Wildlife 6 1.4.8 Farmstead Area 6 1.4.9 Animal Stocking Rates 7 1.4.10 Surrounding Land Uses 7 1.5 Proposed Project Components 8 1.5.1 Toto Ranch RMP Implementation 8 1.5.2 Pond Management 14 1.5.3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Best Management Practices 15 Section 2 Initial Study Checklist 57 2.1 Project Information 57 2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 59 2.3 Lead Agency Determination 60 2.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 61 2.4.1 Aesthetics 62 2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 65 2.4.3 Air Quality 69 2.4.4 Biological Resources 74 2.4.5 Cultural Resources 112 2.4.6 Energy 117 2.4.7 Geology and Soils 119 2.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 125 2.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 128 2.4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 132 IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.11 Land Use and Planning 137 2.4.12 Mineral Resources 139 2.4.13 Noise 141 2.4.14 Population and Housing 144 2.4.15 Public Services 145 2.4.16 Recreation 147 2.4.17 Transportation 149 2.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources 152 2.4.19 Utilities and Service Systems 154 2.4.20 Wildfire 157 2.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance 160 2.5 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures 162 Section 3 List of Preparers 171 3.1 Lead Agency 171 3.2 Consultants 171 Section 4 References 173 IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Exhibits Exhibit A. Toto Ranch Regional Location Map 35 Exhibit B. Aerial Image of Toto Ranch with Topography 37 Exhibit C. Toto Ranch — Farmstead Area (Agricultural and Residential Lease Areas) 39 Exhibit D. Toto Ranch — Farmstead Area (Agricultural and Residential Lease Areas) 41 Exhibit E. Toto Ranch Soils Map 43 Exhibit F. Toto Ranch — Current Infrastructure 45 Exhibit G. Proposed Roadway Improvement 47 Exhibit H. Toto Ranch — Proposed Infrastructure 49 Exhibit I. Aerial Photo and Photo Location Map 51 Exhibit J. Toto Ranch Constraints Map 53 Exhibit K. Toto Ranch Obscured Special -Status Species Locations 55 Tables Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs 17 Table 1B. RMP — Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measures 27 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Recommendations and Requirements 29 Table 3. Estimated Construction Daily Maximum Air Pollutant Emissions 72 Table 4. Estimated Pond Management Maximum Air Pollutant Emissions 73 Table 5. Estimated Total Construction GHG Emissions 127 Table 6. Estimated Annual Pond Management GHG Emissions 127 Table 7. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment 143 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures 163 Appendices Appendix A. Rangeland Management Plan Appendix B. Existing Permits/Guidance Appendix C. Air Quality Appendix D. Biological Resources Appendix E. Biological Resources Regulatory Setting IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND iv October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 Acronyms and Abbreviations AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ATCM airborne toxics control measures AUM Animal Unit Month BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District Basin San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin BMP Best Management Practice CAA Clean Air Act Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council CCAA California Clean Air Act CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CGS California Geological Survey CH4 methane CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CO2 carbon dioxide CRLF California red -legged frog CSA Community Supported Agriculture DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control EECAP Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan EOP Emergency Operations Plan ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG greenhouse gas GIS geographic information system HFC hydrofluorocarbon IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation IPM Integrated Pest Management IS initial study LCP Local Coastal Program Midpen Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District MIG Management Intensive Grazing MLD Most Likely Descendent MND mitigated negative declaration MRZ Mineral Resource Zone N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NO, nitrogen oxides NWIC Northwest Information Center PFC perfluorinated carbon PMio particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter IS/MND v Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 POST Peninsula Open Space Trust PRC Public Resources Code Project Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project PUMP Preliminary Use and Management Plan RDM residual dry matter RMP Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan ROG reactive organic gases SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SFGS San Francisco garter snake SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 SOX sulfur oxides SRA State Responsibility Area SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic air contaminant USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services IS/MND vi Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Document Preface This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the proposed Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project (Project), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 at seq.), by the Project proponent and CEQA Lead Agency (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063[a]), Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen). The primary intent of this document is to (1) determine whether Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts to the environment, and (2) incorporate mitigation measures into the Project design, as necessary, to eliminate or reduce the Project's potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(d) and 150701, projects that have the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment must undergo analysis to disclose potential significant effects. The provisions of CEQA apply to California governmental agencies at all levels, including local agencies, regional agencies, state agencies, boards, commissions and special districts. CEQA requires preparation of an Initial Study (IS) for a discretionary project to determine the range of potential environmental impacts of that project and to define the scope of the environmental review document. As specified in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(f)(2), the lead agency may prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) if, in the course of the IS analysis, it is recognized that the project may have a potentially significant impact on the environment, but that implementation of specific mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. As the lead agency for the proposed Project, Midpen has the principal responsibility for conducting the CEQA environmental review to analyze the potential environmental effects associated with Project implementation. During the review process, it was determined that potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the inclusion of avoidance and minimization measures, and implementation of mitigation measures for impacts that could not be avoided or minimized. Midpen has incorporated mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate any potentially significant Project -related impacts. Therefore, an IS/MND has been prepared for the proposed Project. Note: This Project has not been approved or denied. It is being reviewed for environmental impacts only. Approval of the Project can take place only after the MND has been adopted. IS/MND vii Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Public Review The IS/MND will be circulated for a 30 -day public review period from October 11, 2019, to November 12, 2019. Comments regarding this IS/MND may be made in writing and submitted to Aaron Peth, Planner III, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022- 1404 or by email to apeth@openspace.org. The public Board of Directors meeting to adopt the IS/MND will be held on Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020 at the District Administrative Office, located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. Comments should focus on the proposed fording that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment because revisions or mitigation measures have been made or agreed upon by the Project proponent. If the commenter believes that the Project may have a significant environmental effect, it would be helpful to identify the specific effect, explain why the effect would occur, and why it would be significant. IS/MND viii Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Section 1 Project Description 1.1 Project Overview The proposed Project (or Project) includes implementation of the Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan (RMP) and supporting infrastructure improvements and management practices throughout the 987 -acre Toto Ranch (Project area). Proposed activities include practices to guide grazing, fence and gate installation and/or repairs, road repairs and maintenance, water infrastructure improvements, pond management, avoidance and minimization measures, and monitoring and adaptive management. The RMP, prepared by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) in July of 2018, is included by reference in Appendix A. As stated in the RMP, Midpen's goal is to "manage District land with livestock grazing that is compatible with public access, to maintain and enhance the diversity of native plant and animal communities, manage vegetation fuel for fire protection, sustain the local agricultural economy, and preserve and foster appreciation for the region's rural agricultural heritage," 1.2 Project Location Toto Ranch (Ranch) is located near the coast in unincorporated San Mateo County, California, approximately nine miles south of the City of Half Moon Bay and one mile north of the unincorporated community of San Gregorio. Toto Ranch is within the California Coastal Zone (Exhibit A). Toto Ranch is bordered by State Route 1 (Cabrillo Highway) and the Pacific Ocean to the west, and by Tunitas Creek and Dry Creek to the north. Refer to Exhibits A and B. Toto Ranch is owned by Midpen and the land has been designated with four assessor's parcel numbers totaling approximately 987 acres, which have been further delineated as follows (refer to Exhibit C). • Residential Lease Area (12 acres) is the area near the center of Toto Ranch where the existing lessee resides and has a ranch house, metal -sided barn, wooden barn, and several small outbuildings and sheds. • Agricultural Lease Area (34 acres) is the area where the existing lessee raises a variety of domestic livestock that includes horses, chickens, pigs, goats, sheep, alpacas, and milk cows on the north and south sides of the Residential Lease Area. • Livestock Grazing Area (941 acres) is the remaining area of Toto Ranch where cattle graze. Most of the proposed management activities included in the RMP are within the Livestock Grazing Area. Although some of the proposed infrastructure improvements and pond management activities extend into the Agricultural and Residential Lease Areas (also collectively called the Farmstead Area), all other land management activities in these areas are IS/MND 1 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 ongoing existing activities and are not included in the proposed Project, except to the extent that they affect the Livestock Grazing Area. 1.3 Project Area History and Background The Project area has been continuously grazed for over 120 years. The following information about the Project area history is from the RMP (Appendix A), as well as the Patch, a Redwood City -Woodside publication (January 11, 2013). The property was originally owned by Alexander Gordon, a state assembly member, who in 1872 built Gordon's Chute near the mouth of Tunitas Creek for sliding farm goods from the top of the cliffs to ships anchored offshore. In the late 1800s, the Machado family, originally from Portugal, settled the property and ranched on the property for nearly 100 years. The property was historically grazed with Holstein dairy cows, and many of the hillsides and ridgetops were dryland farmed with hay and oats. In the late 1970s, the Scutchfield family acquired the property, and cattle grazing continued while farming operations ceased. In 2008-2009, Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) purchased the property from the Scutchfield family. At the time, the property was at risk for potential subdivision and development into private luxury estates. In 2012, Midpen purchased the property from POST and added it to the Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve with an agricultural conservation easement, held to date by POST, in place covering the entire property. The Project area is located within the Coastside Protection Area, an area that was annexed into the boundaries of Midpen in 2004. Midpen is committed to protecting coastal watersheds and agricultural lands, and preserving the rural character of the lands that it manages within this area, as well as working with interested public agencies, officials and interested organizations to solicit input throughout the planning process for the property. The project is also subject to the mitigation measures that were identified in the CEQA Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the Coastside Service Plan in 2004. In November of 2014, the Midpen Board approved the Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP) for Toto Ranch that provides the framework for allowed uses within the Project Area, including rangeland management, resource management, wildfire fuel management, public use limitations and future planning efforts for the lands. To date, grazing operations have continued with the existing residential/grazing tenant, the Markegard family, who has leased the land since the late 1980s and has resided on the Ranch (separate residential lease). The Ranch is currently used primarily for grass-fed beef cattle production on the productive and accessible grasslands. The tenant also produces a number of other agricultural commodities including pasture pork, chickens, eggs, goats, lambs, and turkeys IS/MND 2 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 that are marketed through a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) purchasing program. A small number of dairy cows are maintained for milk production as part of a cooperative Herd Share arrangement. The tenant hosts agricultural workshops and field days on the Ranch throughout the year. In addition to cattle, a number of horses and llamas/alpacas/emus are kept on the property and currently graze the grasslands outside of the Farmstead Area. In 2018, Midpen completed the RMP, with the assistance of Koopmann Rangeland Consulting. As described further in Section 1.5.1, the RMP includes management recommendations and best management practices for all grazing areas, and specifically livestock grazing operations and rangeland management, to help ensure the sustainability of agricultural production while protecting rangeland health, soil stability, water quality and the control of invasive vegetation to cooperatively conserve and enhance habitat for wildlife. The intent is for the RMP to be a living document, subject to update as conditions in the Project area change, every 10 years or more often in the event there are significant changes in use, management or ownership. 1.4 Environmental Setting The following section provides an overview of the environmental setting and land uses within the Project area. Additional information relative to the existing conditions for each environmental topic is provided described Section 2.4, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts. 1.4.1 Topography Toto Ranch is north-northwest facing, and topography primarily ranges from gently rolling to moderately steep slopes with two steep canyons that run south -north into the Tunitas Creek stream corridor. The level to gently rolling areas of Toto Ranch support annual grasslands with heavy coyote brush encroachment and coastal scrub habitat. The steeper canyon areas are comprised of dense brush and riparian corridors. Eucalyptus and Monterey Cypress are present in the Farmstead Area (Exhibits C and D). There is also a large, dense, eucalyptus stand east of the Agricultural Lease Area. Elevation ranges from 20 feet near Tunitas Creek in the northwest corner to 885 feet on the ridge top along the south border. 1.4.2 Soils Toto Ranch is comprised of fourteen (14) soil series types (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985) identified on the soils map produced by Midpen (Exhibit E). The majority of the ranch (49 percent) is comprised of Tierra loam/Tierra clay loam and Colma loam (27 percent). Gazos loam and Lobitos loam soils are found within the riparian corridors and steep brush covered slopes above the riparian corridors on the Ranch. The remaining soils are present in a very limited capacity, primarily located within the Tunitas Creek riparian corridor along the extreme northern property boundary. Colma and Tunitas loams comprise the majority of the upland grassland and coastal scrub habitat areas suitable for livestock grazing on Toto Ranch. Steep, IS/MND 3 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 densely vegetated riparian corridors and canyons provide little palatable forage for grazing livestock, but can provide shaded areas for loafing, particularly on the fringe areas adjacent to the grazeable grassland and coastal scrub habitats. 1.4.3 Vegetation The overall conditions of the vegetation (grassland and scrub habitats) within the Livestock Grazing Area range from good to excellent, depending on the forage type and amount and presence of invasive vegetation. Infestations of coyote brush and invasive thistles have historically reduced the quality of range conditions by outcompeting desirable vegetation and shading out seedlings of desirable vegetation on much of the Project area, resulting in rangeland conditions that vary from poor to excellent throughout Toto Ranch. The majority of the Project area is comprised of rolling open grasslands/coastal scrub, heavily influenced by coyote brush encroachment. The steep drainages and riparian corridors are comprised of dense brush/woody vegetation and willows. A large stand of eucalyptus trees is present just east and south of the Agricultural Lease Area. Overall, the vegetation diversity and level of desirable vegetation on the Project area supports an abundant, diverse wildlife population while providing highly productive grazing value. 1.4.4 Water Sources Toto Ranch drains south to north into Dry Creek and Tunitas Creek, along the northern perimeter of the Project area, totaling approximately 9,000 feet of perennial stream frontage. Tunitas Creek is a direct tributary to the Pacific Ocean. Toto Ranch has historically lacked a reliable year-round water supply, particularly under drought conditions. This affects the water supply for residential use and grazing operations. Livestock water within the Agricultural Lease Area and adjacent pastureland is provided through a number of springs, ponds, wells, water tanks, and water troughs (Exhibit F). Water troughs in the pastures and corrals are supplied via two wells on the ridge near the southern property boundary. One well is pumped via a solar pump, and the second well is pumped via a windmill. Water is collected in one 2,500 -gallon and two 5,000 -gallon water storage tanks near the wells, using gravity flow to convey the water via pipe to troughs in and around the Agricultural Lease Area. In addition to the developed water systems, a network of 14 ponds and seasonal wetlands provide stock water throughout the remainder of Toto Ranch, ranging from 0.01 acres to 0.75 acres. Water availability is mostly seasonal (there are two perennial ponds), and water levels are particularly constrained under drought conditions. Livestock prefer to drink out of troughs and tend to rely on these features around the Agricultural Lease Area during late summer and fall months. IS/MND 4 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 A number of natural springs are present, but not currently developed to provide stock water. Management recommendations include the development of these sources for use in grazing operations. Refer to Appendix A (page 47 of the RMP) for a description of this recommendation. Livestock do not have access to Tunitas Creek or Dry Creek as a result of fencing and natural barriers, and creeks are not considered viable water sources for the livestock operation. Residential water for the Agricultural Lease and Residential Lease Areas is provided via a natural spring located on the ridge to the south of the Agricultural Lease Area. The water is collected in a 5,000 -gallon water storage tank and then pumped to the house. 1.4.5 Roadways The main entrance to Toto Ranch is accessed by Cabrillo Highway that creates the west property boundary of the Project area for approximately 1.2 miles (Exhibit F). The main entrance is a paved/gravel driveway. The paved areas of the driveway are in good condition; however, the gravel sections are in poor condition due to the development of potholes. There are no erosion or sedimentation issues associated with the main driveway that result in water quality issues within Toto Ranch. Throughout Toto Ranch, most of the dirt roadways are in fair to good condition, though minimally maintained. Most ranch roads are minimally graded with native vegetation ground cover present. There are three areas within the existing roadways that have been identified for improvement. These areas have been impacted by surface flows coming off the roads, creating incisions and resulting in erosion (Exhibit G). Winter rains will continue to cause damage to the road surface and potentially transport sediment into local streams. There are also areas that are overgrown with brush, creating hazardous conditions for vehicle access. 1.4.6 Fencing The property boundary of Toto Ranch is fenced with "New Zealand style" (high tension, smooth wire) fencing and natural barriers (Exhibit F). Interior pasture fencing has divided the ranch into five main pastures with numerous additional small pastures around the Agricultural Lease Area. Interior pasture fencing is comprised of "New Zealand style" fences in varying condition, barbed wire fences, and natural barriers. Natural slope, rock, and brush barriers have been used historically to contain cattle in many places on the Ranch. The lessee has installed a Management Intensive Grazing (MIG) system consisting of approximately 60 small grazing paddocks, constructed of temporary electric fencing, west of the Agricultural Lease Area, within the Livestock Grazing Area. The MIG is designed for high - intensity, short duration grazing as cattle are regularly rotated between paddocks during the "green" growing season, typically February through June. IS/MND 5 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 1.4.7 Vegetation and Wildlife The RMP provides detailed descriptions of vegetation and wildlife resources within Toto Ranch. Refer to Appendix A (Vegetation Description, page 18, and Wildlife, page 23, of the RMP). The existing conditions of these resources are included in Section 2.4.4, Biological Resources, of this document. 1.4.8 Farmstead Area The Farmstead Area includes the Agricultural Lease Area and Residential Lease Areas. Existing infrastructure in the Farmstead Area includes: utility and access easements, agricultural buildings, corrals and congregation areas, water sources (including residential and for agricultural land uses), and roads. Refer to Appendix A (Improvements, page 12 of the RMP) for additional detail. The Farmstead Area has not been included in the RMP, as the purpose of the RMP is to provide a framework for managing rangeland pastures and grazing within Toto Ranch. The Farmstead Area is developed and supports the residential and agricultural land uses for the lessee. The conditions within the Farmstead Area are therefore not described further in this document. In the future, an Agricultural Production Plan will be prepared for the Farmstead area. As part of the adoption of the Agricultural Production Plan, additional CEQA review will be completed if required. Within the Agricultural Lease Area, livestock infrastructure includes adequate perimeter fencing, livestock water troughs, a functional corral/processing facility, and "cow tight" interior pasture fencing. Water troughs around the Agricultural Lease Area and front pastures are fed via a windmill -powered well and residential water is provided via a natural spring just south of the Agricultural Lease Area. Rangeland Conditions The RMP identifies 941 acres of rangeland pastures on Toto Ranch (excluding the Farmstead Area). Of these 941 acres, approximately 60 percent (546 acres) are annual grasslands and/or grassland -coastal scrub, which have historically been farmed, and more recently grazed with cattle. Rangeland conditions, including forage quality and quantity (annual production), play a key role in determining carrying capacity for pastures. This information can then be used to quantify animal stocking rates for the entire Project area. Forage quality and quantity vary across the Project area based on soil type, topography, aspect, invasive vegetation, and water availability. In general, forage quality is good with a high abundance of palatable, nutritious grasses and forbs. Palatable forage production ranges widely across the Project area, excluding the steeper, wooded slopes and dense brushy canyons that offer no forage potential. Forage production is slightly lower around rocky outcroppings or eroded slopes, as the soil tends to be shallow, limiting rooting and nutrient/water uptake by plants. Palatable forage production is also reduced by the presence of invasive vegetation such as distaff thistle and coyote brush, which occurs throughout IS/MND 6 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 the Project area. Highly palatable annual grasses and low growing forbs comprise the majority of vegetation available for grazing livestock. 1.4.9 Animal Stocking Rates The RMP provides a detailed analysis of methodology for determining stocking rates for Toto Ranch. Refer to Appendix A (Capacity for Conducting Agricultural Uses, page 31 of the RMP). To establish the optimum stocking rate/carrying capacity, existing infrastructure, forage production, soil quality, water availability, and available space were evaluated in light of other goals, including the protection of ecological resources. For Toto Ranch, the estimated stocking rate for an average forage production year is 632.0 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) or 53.0 animal units year-round, but this would significantly increase with a reduction in coyote brush in the grasslands. Stocking rates for Toto Ranch will vary annually based on available forage and water and should be adjusted accordingly based on current and forecasted conditions and available resources. Through the RMP, it was determined that Toto Ranch could support approximately: • 80 cows or 320 ewes year-round during a favorable production year (957.6 AUMs) • 53 cows or 212 ewes year-round during an average production year (632.0 AUMs) • 31 cows or 124 ewes year-round during an unfavorable production year (365 AUMs) AUM levels are maximums and derived under the formulas in the RMP. It is up to the tenant to ensure that the health and safety of the grazing animals are maintained. Unusual conditions (e.g. extended drought or lower level of forage than anticipated) may require that fewer animals be grazed. Midpen's highest goal is to maintain the long-term ecological health of the rangeland. Additional stocking rates for various livestock combinations and environmental conditions (e.g., soils, forage production, drought) are provided in Appendix A (Tables 4, 5, and 6 in the RMP). These estimated stocking rates may increase in the future if vegetation management to reduce coyote brush encroachment is implemented. Coyote brush is well established in many of the steeper canyons and has expanded into the ridgetops and open grassland areas over time. Coyote brush encroachment in the grasslands has reduced forage production by 50 to 80 percent in many pastures. A coyote brush management plan is currently being developed for Midpen preserves and will include Toto Ranch. 1.4.10 Surrounding Land Uses Toto Ranch is located within coastal San Mateo County along the inland side of State Route 1 (Exhibits A and B). The area is located within the California Coastal Zone, regulated through the Local Coast Program (LCP) that has been developed for San Mateo County, and is in an area that has been designated as the Coastside Protection Area, an area that was annexed into Midpen boundaries in 2004. IS/MND 7 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 The surrounding rural landscape is dominated by established ranches used primarily for beef cattle production and row crop production. Vegetable crop, hay and cut flower operations are also scattered throughout the area. The region has undergone a recent increase in poultry, grass- fed meat, egg production and local creameries. The lands that border Toto Ranch to the north, south and east includes are primarily grazed rangeland with associated residential/farm buildings. The land to the north also includes a number of small residential lots and small farm fields in addition to grazed rangelands. State Highway 1 and the Pacific Ocean border Toto Ranch to the west. 1.5 Proposed Project Components The proposed Project includes the following primary components. 1. Toto Ranch RMP Implementation a. Grazing Recommendations b. Fence Repairs and Installation c. Road Repair and Maintenance d. Water Infrastructure Improvements e. Monitoring and Adaptive Management 2. Pond Management 3. Avoidance and Minimization Measures 1.5.1 Toto Ranch RMP Implementation Overview and Existing Guidance Documents The Toto Ranch RMP has been prepared in accordance with conservation grazing goals. This entails Midpen managing lands with livestock grazing that is protective of natural resources and compatible with public access, maintains and enhances the diversity of native plant and animal communities, manages vegetation fuel for fire protection, helps sustain the local agricultural economy, and preserves and fosters appreciation for the region's rural agricultural heritage. The RMP was developed by Midpen to provide a framework around which resource managers, land managers, and grazing lessees can make rangeland management decisions on Toto Ranch, while implementing adaptive management changes to achieve the goals of the RMP and other relevant resource management plans over time. As such, the RMP is a living document that is anticipated to be updated every ten years, or sooner to accommodate a significant change in land use, management practices, or land ownership. The RMP addresses rangeland management practices for: • soil and water conservation, • erosion control, IS/MND 8 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 • pest management, • nutrient management, • water quality protection, and • vegetation and wildlife habitat protection. The RMP (Appendix A) includes specific recommendations and BMPs that are part of the proposed Project, included as Table 1A, and Monitoring and Adaptive Management recommendations, included as Table 1B, in Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures. Additionally, the rangeland management practices would be conducted in accordance with several existing permits and guidance documents (listed below). The existing permits and guidance documents are described in Appendix B, and the recommendations and requirements that are part of the proposed Project are included in Table 2 in Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures. • CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification No 1600-2012-0444-R3 (2018) • Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (1999) • California Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract (Planning File No. AP 84-4, Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 46568, recorded in San Mateo County Records as Document No. 85015218 on February 15, 1985) • Service Plan for the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Area (2002) • San Mateo Coastal Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report (2002) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Resource Management Policies (2018) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual (2014) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Integrated Pest Management Program Environmental Impact Report (2014) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Preliminary Use and Management Plan (2012) • Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands (2014) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Toto Ranch Bat Roost and Acoustic Survey (2018) • RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certifications for Routine Maintenance Activities for Mid -Peninsula Open Space District, Order No. R2-2010-0083 (2010) • USFWS Intra-Service Biological Opinion on the issuance of a 10(a)1(A) permit to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the San Francisco Garter Snake and California Red -Legged Frog Habitat Enhancement Projects at their Open Space Preserves in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, California (2016) • USFWS Native Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Permit (2016) IS/MND 9 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 A. Grazing Recommendations The RMP includes grazing recommendations to be implemented by Midpen and the grazing tenant for the Livestock Grazing Area of Toto Ranch to guide livestock grazing operations and rangeland management throughout the Project area. The RMP identifies several sets of goals for Toto Ranch that influenced the development of the grazing recommendations provided therein. These included Midpen Ownership and Management Goals and are based on the desire to maintain specific land uses and environmental conditions, as well as existing management plans and documents previously approved by Midpen that apply to Toto Ranch (refer to Appendix A, page 4 of the RMP). The RMP also outlines specific goals and objectives for grazing management at Toto Ranch, and these are called RMP Goals and Objectives (refer to Appendix A, page 6 of the RMP). Both sets of goals are provided below. The RMP is part of an integrated approach to vegetation management that is consistent with Midpen's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program to control invasive vegetation, with a focus on wooly distaff thistle, French broom, onion grass and coyote brush. Biological, chemical, cultural, manual and mechanical control measures may be implemented that include, but are not limited to, timed grazing, hand digging, herbicide application, reseeding and burning/torching. The RMP includes various management recommendations that are designed to guide the use of grazing as one of the tools available to Midpen in vegetation management and agricultural heritage preservation. The goals of these recommendations, as stated in the RMP, are to: "ensure the sustainability of agricultural production on Toto Ranch while protecting rangeland health, soil stability, water quality and the control of invasive vegetation to cooperatively conserve and enhance habitat for wildlife". Recommendations and best management practices from the RMP are summarized in Table 1A. Coyote brush is well established in many of the steeper canyons of Toto Ranch, and has expanded into the ridgetops and open grassland areas over time. Coyote brush encroachment in the grasslands has reduced forage production by 50 to 80 percent in many pastures. The lessee has attempted mechanical control of the coyote brush by mowing, primarily in the front pastures (Pastures 1 and 2 in Exhibit F) between the Agricultural Lease Area and Cabrillo Highway. The mowing has reduced the size of the individual plants but has done little to reduce the quantity and percent cover of the coyote brush. A strategic plan to control coyote brush is currently being developed separate of the RMP for Toto Ranch, will be analyzed under the IPM CEQA EIR compliance process, and therefore has not been analyzed as part of the Project. IS/MND 10 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 The following grazing recommendations are based on the Midpen Ownership and Management Goals and are incorporated into the Project. • One grazing lessee would operate the lands with a multi -year grazing lease. • The Agricultural Lease Area would be managed under a separate lease than the Livestock Grazing Area and would define specific uses within the Agricultural Lease Area. • Grazing of cattle would continue on the Livestock Grazing Area of Toto Ranch, and would not include the Agricultural Lease Area. • Cattle loading and off-loading, and all processing of cattle, would occur only within the corral within the Agricultural Lease Area. • All domestic livestock production (horses, donkeys, goats, llamas, alpacas, pigs, emus, chickens and turkeys) would occur only within the Agricultural Lease Area, with the exception of horses used for cattle operations within the Livestock Grazing Area. These would be limited to a maximum of seven (7) total horses. • The seven (7) working ranch horses would be permitted to graze in Pastures 1-3 (Exhibit F) during the dry months; typically, April — October. • Toto Ranch would be grazed year-round, dependent upon available forage and livestock water, with cattle rotated between the five (5) existing pastures. If available forage and/or stock water is not adequate to support grazing livestock, cattle would temporarily be removed from Toto Ranch, and grazing would be restricted to seasonal use only. • Water use would be prioritized for cattle grazing within the Livestock Grazing Area, under the RMP, with secondary water use available to domestic livestock within the Agricultural Lease Area. • Lands would be managed utilizing livestock conservation grazing that is protective of natural resources and compatible with public access. • The diversity of native plant and animal communities would be maintained and enhanced. • Vegetation would be managed for fuel for fire protection. • Toto Ranch would be managed to help sustain the local agricultural economy. • Management of Toto Ranch would preserve and foster appreciation for the region's rural agricultural heritage. In order to meet the Goals and Objectives of the RMP, the plan contains the following elements that were identified based on the overall conservation grazing goals of Midpen. • Describe appropriate historic, current, and potential future agricultural uses. • Inventory existing agricultural resources, including soils, water sources, grassland vegetation, forage quality and production, croplands and infrastructure. • Determine capacity for conducting viable agricultural uses. • Establish provisions for minimizing erosion and transport of potential pollutants into creeks IS/MND 11 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 • Provide a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for climate related impacts, grazing standards, invasive species management, water resources and conservation. • Provide specific guidance for the conduct of agricultural uses that complies with the restrictions contained in the Easement. The plan will include, as appropriate, Animal Unit Equivalents (AUE), ranch forage production estimates, available forage, crop production estimates, and capacity for any other agricultural uses described in the RMP. B. Fence Repair and Installation Fencing improvements are included in the RMP, as shown in Exhibit H, and would be implemented over time. All fence improvements include wildlife friendly fencing, using 4 strand barbed wire with a smooth bottom. The proposed fencing improvements include: • Replacement of the entirety of the West Property Boundary Fence, • Replacement of the entirety of the South Property Boundary Fence, • Installation of a Cross Fence in Field 3, • Removal of the old fence/unused fence/MIG, and • Potential fencing of the stock ponds as an adaptive management strategy for California red -legged frog (CRLF). C. Road Repair and Maintenance Most of the roads throughout Toto Ranch are in good condition and do not require maintenance. The following areas have been identified in the RMP for roadway repairs (Exhibit G). The two (2) sections of road that show signs of rutting/gully activity would be repaired to maintain the integrity and protect downstream water quality. In Field 3, a culvert or ford crossing would be installed in a riparian habitat and minor grading/brushing would be required to make the road passable. Additionally, as described under D below, the Project includes the installation of a new waterline adjacent to or under the driveway that provides access to the Agricultural Lease Area. Because Midpen is planning improvements to the driveway (formerly called Starr Hill Road) as part of a separate future project, the waterline would be installed at that time to minimize ground disturbance. Roadway improvements and installation of the waterline would include restoration of the surface contours and fabric of the road to its original grade elevation, travel direction, and overall character. Any improvements to other roadways, including the driveway that provides access to the Agricultural Lease Area, are not included within the RMP, and therefore impacts have not been analyzed. D. Water Infrastructure Improvements Water infrastructure improvements would enhance livestock distribution and overall forage utilization, as well as extend the grazing season, which is currently affected by the lack of stock IS/MND 12 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 water during summer and fall months (Exhibit H). The proposed water infrastructure improvements include: • Replacing the plastic water troughs in and around the Agricultural Lease Area, • Installing a new waterline adjacent to or under the driveway that provides access to the Agricultural Lease Area, • Installing a new waterline and trough north of the Agricultural Lease Area, • Improving the Field 3 water system, including the spring, solar powered pump, tank, pipe and troughs, • Ensuring wildlife escape ramps are present in all troughs, and • Adhering to Midpen's wildlife friendly spring development designs. These improvements are designed to provide additional water sources in the smaller pastures formed through cross fencing to provide smaller grazing areas and additional grazing rotational flexibility. The addition of water troughs would provide more water source storage capacity. Additional pond management actions would also be included on Toto Ranch, but are not included in the RMP. These actions are further discussed below in Section 1.5.2, Pond Management. E. Monitoring and Adaptive Management The RMP outlines a monitoring program for Toto Ranch to ensure that the implementation of the RMP management recommendations and BMPs are achieving the goals and objectives identified in the plan. The results of monitoring observations can be used as a guideline for adaptive management changes, as needed. A summary table of the monitoring protocols and criteria, with timing recommendations and photo monitoring points, is included in Table 1B and Exhibit I. As described above, the RMP includes management goals and objectives, specific actions to achieve them, and relevant guidance documents to ensure the actions and Project are implemented in accordance with existing requirements. Specific actions include, but are not limited to, fence repairs, road repairs, and water infrastructure improvements. These practices and Projects would improve the ability of Midpen and the grazing tenant/lessee to access and manage the property, while protecting the land from excess erosion and other impacts. However, because habitats and sensitive resources are widely distributed throughout the Project area, implementation of the different management techniques prescribed in the RMP must be considered and administered thoughtfully (Exhibits J and K). Sensitive resources include: erodible soils, locations of special -status species, wetlands and other natural water features and their associated riparian zones, steep slopes, and existing or potential locations of cultural resources. The locations of sensitive resources, including areas with multiple resources and/or constraints, must be identified, and management techniques and timing adjusted in order to ensure the protection of these resources and areas. IS/MND 13 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 An opportunities and constraints analysis was conducted to identify the locations of sensitive resources and higher -constrained areas on a map of Toto Ranch using Midpen's existing geographic information system (GIS) files. ArcMap 10.6 was used to overlay the locations of all sensitive resources, and a spatial analysis was used to identify areas with numerous sensitive species, sensitive resources, or importance. Although no formal weighting process was used in the analysis, general knowledge of the resources and their importance were used in conjunction with the spatial analysis to determine areas in which grazing or other RMP-identified activities should be eliminated or constrained. The results of these analyses have been taken into account in both the Project description and in the impact analysis within this document. The results of this analysis have been used and would continue to be used to implement the RMP over time throughout Toto Ranch and to determine future improvement Projects. This analysis would also be used to determine appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, and applicable mitigation measures that would be required to minimize and avoid environmental impacts. Relevant topics are discussed within the appropriate resource analyses, including biological resources, geology, and hydrology. 1.5.2 Pond Management Pond management practices were not specifically included in the RMP but are necessary to support RMP implementation, because currently seasonal ponds dry up mid -summer and cattle cannot graze those pastures. Improvements to stock ponds would enhance habitat for special -status species and improve the overall water function throughout Toto Ranch. The proposed stock pond management activities include: • Installing and/or improving inlet and/or outlets, • Reconstructing berms to modify the hydroperiod of the water body, • Recontouring the shape and depth of ponds, including sedimentation removal; • Connecting ponds to existing or new water infrastructure, including troughs, pumps, water lines and other facilities to move water from ponds to serve cattle or bypass water outside of an approved diversion season, • Installing cattle exclusion fencing, • Treating invasive species, as necessary, and/or • Decommissioning ponds. The construction window for these repairs would be from August 15 to October 15 (if wet) to minimize potential impacts to CRLF and would occur over the course of several years. In the event that pond management would result in a net loss of wetlands through the decommissioning of smaller stock ponds or seasonal catchments when restoring natural drainage within Toto Ranch, Midpen would be required to mitigate all wetland impacts at a IS/MND 14 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 minimum ratio of 1:1, in compliance with permits that have been obtained from the USACE, USFWS, RWQCB and CDFW. This may be achieved through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, or the expansion/enhancement of another existing pond. Informal consultation would be required by the agencies prior to the implementation of decommissioning activities to ensure that both the acreage and function of wetlands within Toto Ranch was preserved. 1.5.3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Best Management Practices RMP - Recommendations and Best Management Practices As described above in Section 1.5.1, Toto Ranch RMP Implementation, the proposed Project includes the avoidance and minimization measures listed in Table lA based on specific recommendations and BMPs listed in the RMP. Existing Permits and Guidance Documents — Recommendations and Requirements The proposed Project includes the avoidance and minimization measures listed in Table 2 based on existing permits and guidance documents. Construction & Management BMPs Implementation of the specific Projects identified in the RMP may require the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) as the combined area that would be impacted through the proposed improvement projects may be over one acre in size (2009-0009-DWQ Construction General Permit). If the area of impact for any proposed project improvements was less than one acre in size, all improvement activities undertaken at Toto Ranch would be required to implement the BMPs in accordance with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Construction BMPs program (June 2014 edition). Construction specifications would include the following BMPs to control erosion, sediment and stormwater pollution, whether implemented through a project SWPPP or through County BMPs. • All exposed and un-compacted surfaces (e.g., staging areas, soil piles and graded areas) would either be watered two times a day or covered with mulch, straw, or other dust control cover. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site would be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be collected and removed at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads would be limited to 15 miles per hour. ' State Water Resources Control Board, Storm Water Program, Section II.C.2 of 2009-0009-DWQ Construction General Permit as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml IS/MND 15 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 • Idling times would be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measures (ATCM) Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). • All construction equipment would be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment would be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Hand tools would be used when possible. The use of gas and diesel -powered vehicles within vegetated areas poses a fire risk. The following BMPs would be implemented to reduce the fire ignition risk throughout specific Project implementation at Toto Ranch (Midpen, 2002). • All equipment to be used during construction and maintenance activities must have an approved spark arrestor. • Grass and fuels around construction sites where construction vehicles are allowed to be parked would be cut or reduced. • Mechanical construction equipment that may cause an ignition would not be used when the National Weather Service issues a Red Flag Warning for the San Francisco Bay Area, unless prior approval is provided by CAL FIRE. • Hired contractors would be required to: • Provide water and/or fire extinguishers to suppress potential fires caused by the work performed. • Remind workers that smoking is prohibited at the work site and on any Midpen lands per contract conditions and Midpen Ordinances. • Maintain working ABC fire extinguishers on all vehicles in the work area. • Contact CAL FIRE for emergency response in the event of a fire. The RMP includes a suite of management recommendations and BMPs that are designed to guide the use of grazing as one of the tools available to Midpen in vegetation management and agricultural heritage preservation. The goals of the recommendations and BMPs, as stated in the RMP, are to, "ensure the sustainability of agricultural production on the Ranch while protecting rangeland health, soil stability, water quality and the control of invasive vegetation to cooperatively conserve and enhance habitat for wildlife." Detailed descriptions of these recommendations are available in the RMP and are summarized in Table 1A. IS/MND 16 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation Vegetation Prescriptions • Leave prescribed levels of RDM • Support seed bank • Minimize soil erosion and sedimentation • Protect water quality • Reduce invasive plants • All rangeland/ pasture • All seasons • 0%-30% slopes: 2-3 in or 800-1,000 Ibs/acre (ave) • >30% slopes: 3-4 in or 1,00- 1,200 Ibs/acre • No significant areas of bare soil, especially on steep slopes or near riparian corridors Grazing Season • Light to moderate rotational grazing regimes (short duration) • Limited by available stock water • Rotation determined by standing forage (See Vegetation Prescriptions) • Rotation a combination of sheep and cattle may enhance forage utilization • Enhance biodiversity • Enhance aesthetics • Enhance forage production • All rangeland/ pasture • All seasons • Stable/ enhanced stock water supply (especially in summer and fall) • Standing forage (see Vegetation Prescriptions) • If water supply is limited, implement seasonal grazing regime (restrict grazing during dry months) or partial seasonal grazing regime with higher stocking rates during the winter and spring and reduced stocking during summer and fall Water Supply • Provide clean, cool water for livestock in troughs (galvanized and concrete, not plastic) • Reduce the direct livestock consumption of streams and stock ponds as water sources • Monitor water infrastructure (i.e., pipes, fixtures, troughs, solar pump, windmill, wells, storage tank) and maintain as necessary • Choris' • Install wildlife escape ramps in all troughs • Water should be prioritized for cattle and sheep (not alpacas, chickens, etc. or horses, irrigation of pastures) • Field 3 spring/water improvements (install solar -powered pump, storage tank, and water • Livestock health • Reduce erosion potential along creeks and around stock ponds • Reduce impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat and species • Minimize impacts on wildlife(from drowning in water troughs) or loss of habitat from spring development • Improve ability to rotate cattle • All troughs and water infrastructu re • Reduce the use of all stock ponds and • streams • Field 3 (spring improveme nts) • Stable/ enhanced Stock water supply (especially in summer and fall) popcorn flower habitat and population • Reduce impacts to Choris' popcorn flower from construction of infrastructure Projects; improve habitat for this species with properly timed rotational grazing IS/MND 17 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation troughs) to allow properly timed grazing for Choris' popcorn flower • Adhere to District's wildlife friendly spring designs • Improve stability of water sources • Maximize water source and availability • Enhance Choris' popcorn flower population Stockponds • Routine maintenance (e.g., desilting and vegetation management) • Maintain spillway(s) and berm of stock ponds • Analyze and monitor condition of stock ponds • Decommission smaller stock ponds or seasonal catchments, when appropriate, and restore natural drainage • Damage • Enhance ponds where possible to support successful breeding (all life stages) of California red -legged frog (CRLF) and San Francisco garter snake (SFGS) populations • Maintain permits for stock pond maintenance activities • Maintain water storage capacity • Provide wildlife habitat • Provide water source for wildlife • Restore natural drainages and protect riparian habitat • Protect downstream water bodies from sedimentation • Extend life of stock ponds • Enhance habitat for aquatic species (including CRLF and SFGS) • All rangeland/ pasture stock ponds p • Quality and quantity of stock pond water supply • Condition of stock ponds • CRLF and SFGS habitat • enhancement • Reduced capacity of stock ponds requires desilting • Disrepair of stock and p spillways and berms indicates need for maintenance/repairs to vegetation and banks of on stream stock ponds indicates that a pond shall be removed • Habitat assessment of ponds for CRLF and SFGS will indicate the need for pond management (fencing, grazing regime change, etc. See CRLF and SFGS Management, below) Supplemental Feed • Place water and supplemental feed/mineral stations on ridge tops and upland areas, away from water sources and riparian features • Supplemental forage shall be certified "weed free", and proof of certification, in the form of • Promotes even use/distribution of the pastures by livestock • Prevents localized impacts from livestock (e.g., soil • All rangeland/ pastures and Agricultural Lease Area • Amount of standing forage (see Vegetation Prescriptions) • Supplemental feed should be considered under drought conditions (low RDM) • Uneven grazing of pastures (areas of low IS/MND 18 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation a copy of the California Department of Food and Agriculture Form 66-079 "Certificate of compaction, trampling, erosion) • Soil conditions that indicate and high RDM within the same pasture) indicates Quarantine Compliance", shall be requested • Prevents the introduction livestock are that feed/mineral stations from the vendor, and inspected by Midpen and spread of seed from not using the may need to be moved to Natural Resources Department staff prior to feeding invasive plants into pastures entire pasture encourage grazing of entire pasture • Supplemental feeding should not be used to extend the grazing season beyond the guidelines for prescribed RDM levels in the pastures. Fencing and • Maintain quality, functional infrastructure (i.e., • Increase ease of livestock • All • Condition of • Fencing in disrepair Corrals fencing, gates, corrals) handling for grazing rangeland/ fencing indicates need for repair • Install new mesh wire fencing for sheep (if rotation and controlling pastures or replacement sheep are included in the livestock access to riparian corridors and • Failure to contain operations) and other sensitive Agricultural livestock within specified • Confine sheep to predator proof pens or paddocks at night • Wire fencing on western and southern boundary should be replaced with barbed wire fencing as the existing fence fails, using Midpen specifications for livestock fencing • Install new section of barbed wire fencing southeast of the Agricultural Lease Area to split Field 3 into two separate pastures (by bisecting pond TC-06) to facilitate rotational grazing to benefit Choris' popcorn flower and CRLF (See Proposed Infrastructure for fence alignment) • Remove old fencing that does not function as a pasture barrier habitats/areas • Decrease injury to livestock while ensuring containment in proper pastures • Enhance Choris' popcorn flower habitat • Protect/enhance CRLF habitat (emergent vegetation) Lease Area pastures indicates need for fence repair or replacement . Condition of rangeland/pasture, soil, riparian areas, and stock ponds may indicate a need for additional fencing to exclude livestock or change pasture configuration to balance grazing pressure • Injuries to livestock or wildlife indicates need to change fencing materials or location IS/MND 19 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation Herd Health • Implement herd health program, including vaccinations, deworming, and additional nutrients • Livestock productivity and health • Preventative care • All livestock • Herd health must be maintained at all times • Diseased or injured animals must be treated by a veterinarian or other qualified technician Ranch Roads • Maintain roads, including cleaning ditches and culverts, grades, water diversions, and water bars (especially during winter months) • Mow vegetation on road surfaces (as opposed to grading) • Road repair at two road sections (see Exhibit G in the RMP for locations) • Repair main gravel driveway between State Route 1 and the Agricultural Lease (potholes) • • Maintain access to pastures for grazing operation, maintenance, restoration, recreation, and emergency response • Minimize water flow and erosion on and adjacent to road surfaces •Decreases read of p invasive plants along road cuts and grades • All rangeland/ pastures and Agricultural Lease Area • Condition of roads and adjacent areas • Condition of culverts • Soil erosion • Conditions that indicate erosion and instability of roads indicates the need for maintenance (e.g., gullies and rills, ponded water, "washboard" road surfaces, washed out areas, potholes, slips or slides) Drought Preparedness • Maintain clean, reliable water source(s) • Maintain increased water storage capacity • Develop additional water sources if feasible (e.g., springs and wells) • If water yield increases, add water tanks for increased water storage • Lower stocking rates to below recommended carrying capacity to extend grazing season and retain forage until new forage sprouts • Grass banking (retain forage in a designated pasture by minimizing or eliminating grazing pressure in late spring and summer) • Store and feed supplemental forage (e.g., hay) that can be fed to livestock to supplement natural forage during a drought • Alleviate impacts of drought, including lack of forage, lack of water, herd health, mineral deficiencies, and lack of production • Meet vegetation prescriptions during drought • Maintain quality of pastures during drought • Maintain soil health during drought • All rangeland/ pastures and Agricultural Lease Area • Water quality • Water availabilit y •Forage quality • Forage availability • Livestock health and forage utilization • None. These management activities should be implemented as directed upon adoption of the RMP. IS/MND 20 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation • Provide mineral/protein supplements to increase forage utilization, herd health, and overall productivity of livestock Pathogen • Prevent fecal contamination of creeks and • Reduce the transmission • All • Water quality • None. These Reduction and Risk other water features of pathogens between rangeland/ • Presence of management activities Management • Restrict livestock access to Tunitas Creek, Dry Creek, and perennial tributaries to both livestock, humans, and wildlife pastures and pathogens and pests should be implemented as directed upon water courses • Reduce the contamination Agricultural • Cleanliness of adoption of the RMP. • Maintain a natural vegetative buffer of no less than 30 ft from top of bank in Tunitas Creek, Dry Creek, and perennial tributaries • Restrict pasture swine rearing to flat pens in of water ways • Vegetative buffer will trap pathogens before they reach water bodies Lease Area animal pens and pastures • Location of manure piles Agricultural Lease area • Maintain a 100 ft vegetative buffer between swine and perennial streams • Location of water sources • Control runoff and leaching from stockpiled manure, confined livestock, and corral facilities • Maintain a 100 ft vegetative buffer between corrals and perennial streams • Control flies and rodents in the Agricultural Lease area according to the District's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program • Remove excess fecal waste from livestock within the confined livestock pens and corrals to reduce fly and insect presence • Provide off -stream livestock water sources (e.g., water troughs) to reduce use of streams by livestock • Implement comprehensive livestock husbandry program that includes appropriate and timely vaccinations and deworming IS/MND 21 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation California Red- • Time grazing to enhance aquatic and upland • Provides cover, nutrient • All • Water quality • Decrease in water quality Legged Frog habitat for CRLF (vegetation management levels, water depth, and rangeland/ • Condition of (turbidity, nutrient levels, Management and cover and water quality) turbidity conducive to pastures stock ponds temperature) will require • Repair eroding or leaking dams and CRLF breeding and • Stock • Condition of adjustments to grazing spillways, remove excessive silt and subsistence ponds creeks regime/access by cattle vegetation, and control non-native predators .Creeks and Condition • Shallow pond depth will • Provide upland refuges and dense vegetation for predator protection • Do not eliminate burrowing rodent populations, and if rodent control is needed, do not use methods that would harm aestivating CRLF • Provide alternative water sources (water troughs) that will alleviate pressure, and therefore impacts, on existing stock ponds. Some use of stock ponds by cattle is beneficial for CRLF. • Adjust grazing intensity to enhance aquatic habitat by altering the timing and/or stocking rates of pastures with CRLF-occupied ponds. Follow recommendations in water supply above to enhance CRLF habitat by providing a sufficient inundation period for restoration streams • of emergent vegetation • Condition of riparian vegetation • Condition of upland vegetation • Presence of small mammal burrows and other upland refugia (downed logs, rocks, etc.) necessitate silt removal • Overly dense vegetation must be removed • Overly trampled pond edges will require adjustments to grazing regime/access by cattle • Over -grazed emergent and riparian vegetation will require adjustments to grazing regime/access by cattle (Dec -Sept). • When removing sediment and/or restoring ponds, provide a variation of water depths and vegetation cover for all CRLF life stages (deep center and shallow edges). • Manage emergent vegetation (cattails and other vegetation) so that density does not degrade habitat quality for CRLF. • Water troughs must be fitted with wildlife escape ramps IS/MND 22 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation San Francisco • Benefits from same management of grazing • Provides adequate escape • All • Water quality • Decrease in water quality Garter Snake in upland areas and around springs and habitat during frog mating rangeland/ • Condition of (turbidity, nutrient levels, Management stock ponds as CRLF because they utilize season (Dec -Mar) and pastures stock ponds temperature) will require the same habitat during SFGS breeding and Condition adjustments to grazing • Because CRLF is the main prey, increases in season (Mar Jun and Sep- Agricultural • of creeks regime/access by cattle CRLF population also benefits the SFGS Oct) Lease Area Condition • Shallow pond depth will • Manage upland habitat for a mosaic of open • Provides reliable food • Stock • of emergent necessitate silt removal grassland, brush, and downed woody debris source (CRLF) ponds • Creeks and streams vegetation . Condition of riparian vegetation • Condition of upland vegetation • Presence of small mammal burrows and other upland refugia • Overly dense vegetation must be removed • Overly trampled pond edges will require adjustments to grazing regime/access by cattle • Over -grazed emergent and riparian vegetation will require adjustments to grazing regime/access by cattle (downed logs, rocks, etc.) • Presence of upland habitat mosaic (grassland and shrub) Choris' Popcorn • Implement a seasonal grazing program that • Enhance habitat and • All • Choris' • Adjust grazing regime Flower is compatible with and provides habitat population of Choris' rangeland/ popcorn flower (timing, amount of days Management benefit to Choris' popcorn flower popcorn flower pastures habitat and grazed) from • Improve water management to provide where population recommendations if additional water sources for cattle, protecting Choris' popcorn enhancement blooming and seed production schedules are IS/MND 23 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation habitat around springs for Choris' popcorn flower flower occur different from expected dates • Reduce annual/non-native vegetation through timed livestock grazing prior to blooming period (graze in Dec -Feb in advance of Mar -Jun blooming period) • If trampling occurs, provide temporary exclusionary fencing to protect plants • Grazing can continue after seeds are released (July) • Reduce trampling from foot traffic, livestock, and road use • Prohibit placement of manure or compost within 50 feet of popcorn flower habitat areas • Implement a monitoring program for Choris' popcorn flower in accordance with Midpen guidance documents and other similar monitoring programs in progress district wide Invasive Plant • Develop integrated approach for identifying • Increase and/or maintain • All • Extent of • None. These Control and treating invasive plants that impact forage productivity rangeland/ invasive plant management activities forage production and grassland health (i.e., coyote brush, yellow star thistle, wooly distaff • Increase and/or maintain livestock productivity pastures and infestation • Establishment should be implemented as directed upon thistle, Italian thistle, bull thistle, onion grass) •• Increase and/or maintain Agricultural (new adoption of the RMP. Contain weed infestation to current extent (prevent spread of invasive plants) wildlife habitat value (forage quality) Lease Area infestations) of invasive plants • Comply with Midpen's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, Integrated Pest • Sufficient levels of RDM Management Plan (IPMP) BMPs, and the federal injunction to protect CRLF from impacts from specific chemical pesticides • Meet 2 -3 -inch RDM goals for Vegetative (see Vegetation Prescriptions, above) Prescriptions (see above) • Apply selective broadleaf herbicide in the spring to control purple star thistle and wooly IS/MND 24 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation distaff thistle; follow up with manual removal of late sprouts in summer • Remove and bag wooly distaff thistle plants at least 5 in below soil surface before flowering • Mow invasive thistles with high branching patterns in late spiny or early flowering stages • Prioritize thistle removal where risk of seed spread is high (e.g., road sides, cattle trails, and loafing areas) • Use weed wrenches to remove French broom plants; prevent seed bank from forming • Feed certified weed free hay to prevent the introduction of invasive plants • Do not import outside soil or fill material • Clean vehicles and ranch equipment as needed to prevent the importation of invasive plant seeds from infested areas • Contact the local Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for funding and technical assistance with IPMP • For onion grass, remove foliage close to the ground at 3 -5 -week intervals, maintain natural forage cover, and fertilize native vegetation (to outcompete onion grass), only under the direction of Natural Resources Staff • Measures identified in the Coyote Brush Management Plan that is currently being developed my Midpen would be implemented at Toto Ranch. IS/MND 25 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation Additional • Additional domestic livestock (Sheep, goats, • Minimize erosion • All • Presence of • None. These Livestock chickens, pigs, llamas/alpacas, and horses) • Minimize risk of pathogen rangeland/ additional management activities Production shall be confined to the Agricultural Lease area • Confine small domestic livestock to pens or barns at night to minimize the risk of predation and pest infestation • Maintain rangeland/pasture quality • Maintain water quality pastures and Agricultural g Lease Area • All livestock livestock should be implemented as directed upon adoption of the RMP. p • Dairy operations are not supported by current infrastructure and may not occur • Breeding, training, raising and selling horses (Horse Operations), and boarding outside horses are not permitted on Toto Ranch. Miscellaneous • Within the Agricultural Lease Area, the • Minimize erosion • Agricultural • None • None. These (pulled from other lessee may grow vegetable crops and/or tree • Minimize water usage Lease Area management activities sections of the crops for personal use. Prior to the lessee • Entire should be implemented RMP) planting vegetable crops or imported trees, p g g p p all crops must be approved by Midpen's • Minimize spread of pathogens and pest property as directed upon P adoption of the RMP. Natural Resources Department. species • Prior to planting a vegetable garden, the lessee must be pre -approved by Midpen staff. Vegetable gardens and/or small orchards would be located within the • Maintain water quality • Maintain quality of rangeland/forage Agricultural Lease Area in areas that would not result in downstream water quality impacts, or decrease the grazing capacity of Toto Ranch. • All soils associated with potted plants and/or trees that test positive for phytopthora would be prohibited within Toto Ranch. • Cultivated farming operations would not be permitted on Toto Ranch. IS/MND 26 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1B. RMP — Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measures Monitoring Parameter Description Timing RDM Forage and livestock distribution trends to ensure appropriate RDM remains on the ground RDM levels shall be recorded using pounds per acre, and measurements may be calculated or ocular estimates can be used. The prescribed RDM standard for moderate grazing is an average minimum of 800-1,000 pounds per acre of dry matter (two to three inches of standard RDM) on slopes of 0%-30%, and 1,000-2,000 pounds per acre of dry matter (three to four inches of standing RDM) on slopes greater than thirty percent. Leaving prescribed levels of RDM on the ground surface would provide a grassland seed crop for the following season, minimize the risk for soil erosion and sedimentation, and protect water quality. Fall at sites that exemplify the average RDM level in a pasture (not burned areas, roads, corrals, sites with low soil fertility, water sources, feeding sites, areas subject to damage by wildlife (feral pigs) and areas that have been recently cultivated. Livestock Infrastructure (water systems, gates, fencing) Condition of livestock infrastructure, including water systems, gates and fencing, to ensure conformity with the terms of the easement and to improve rangeland and grazing management practices. Infrastructure — Conditions of infrastructure relevant to the grazing and/or agricultural operations (water troughs, tanks, fencing, irrigation lines) would be observed, noting location, current condition and the needs for adjustments or repairs. Access Road Observations — The conditions of roads, including surface condition, vegetation cover, culverts, recent maintenance or grading, and water diversion measures would be noted. Any signs of erosion, rutting or gullying on road surfaces or below the roads would be noted, particularly downstream of channel crossings. Yearly Non -Native Invasive Vegetation Non-native invasive vegetation with an emphasis on location, distribution and abundance of plant species. Invasive Species Observed - This would include a list of observed invasive plant species noting relative abundance, location and density, noting any differences from the prior year. Describe methods use for the previous year that were implemented for treatment or control of invasive species (grazing, herbicide application, mowing, etc.) and vegetation response to treatment methods. Twice a year — spring and summer (based on phenology of invasive species present) Stock Ponds Ensure aquatic habitat for special -status wildlife species is free of invasive predators such as fish and/or bullfrogs (this information is already collected as part of Midpen Districtwide CRFL monitoring for permit requirements and can be submitted for this purpose). Yearly — late winter/early spring IS/MND 27 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 1B. RMP — Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measures Monitoring Parameter Description Timing Native Vegetation/Habitats Desirable vegetation including native grasses, wildflowers and trees with an emphasis on location, distribution and abundance. Plant Communities Observed - This would include a list of plant communities observed within view of the photo point (e.g., annual grassland, woodlands, wetlands, etc.), with any measurable trends or transition between plant community types from the prior year (Exhibit I) Annual point line monitoring for species composition in addition to RDM monitoring is recommended in Pastures 1-3 to monitor potential changes in vegetation guilds. Twice a year — spring and late fall Agricultural Practices (excluding grazing) Describe any impacts, positive or negative, observed as a result of agricultural practices (farming and/or grazing). Yearly - late fall Restoration Projects Monitor and report vegetation that was planted or seeded as part of restoration or remediation work (where applicable) with an emphasis on location, distribution, abundance and survival rate. Yearly — spring Climate Change Natural climatic changes (drought, floods, fire, etc.), geologic process, and biologic cycles beyond the land owner's control should be noted and described, as applicable. Yearly Grazing Management Monitor and report stocking rates, herd type and duration of grazing should be noted where applicable. Monitor and report condition of rangeland pastures that are grazed by horses. Yearly Soil Erosion Areas that are at risk for erosion or where soil loss has occurred as a result of surface water flow, wind, fire or human activity. These sites may include gullies, bare ground exposure, landslides, ruts or notable surface runoff. Historic activity would be noted in comparison to existing conditions, and recommended soil protection measures would be identified and implemented in compliance with existing permit requirements. Yearly — late winter/early spring Photo Points Baseline photos and photo -monitoring points have been established in Attachment A of the RMP (photo point locations are shown in Exhibit I); a sample photo monitoring form has been included under Exhibit G of the RMP. The Grazing Annual Checklist shown in Exhibit J shall be used to record annual findings. Yearly — fall prior to first rainfall Wildlife Wildlife species that are observed at the location of the photo points, including information about the species and relative abundance shall be noted. Observations of special -status species shall be reported to Midpen to be included in annual reporting to applicable reporting agencies (photo point locations are shown in Exhibit I). Twice a year — winter and summer IS/MND 28 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Recommendations and Requirements Avoidance and Minimization Measures (By Resource) 1. Ponds and Wetlands Documents That Contains the Measure 0 U 0 0 0 M CD 0 Q co • 8 0 0 — R d 0 0 0 .Z U CO d-cs a) 0 0 R O a) " ceco 0- a Q N O a l0 al C f? C. R O E .2 LL co 1A. Pond Monitoring and Annual Work Plan X X X 1B. Pond Berm Repairs/Maintenance X X 1C. Pond Outlet Repairs/Maintenance X X 1D. Pond Basins Repairs/Maintenance X X 1E. Pond Trash Cleanup X X 1 F. Preconstruction Surveys Prior to Pond Maintenance, Enhancement, and Creation X X 1G. Implementation of Pond Maintenance, Enhancement, and Creation Activities X X 2. Creeks and Streams 2A. Preconstruction Surveys Prior to Maintenance, Enhancement, and Construction In and Near Creeks and Streams X X 2B. Culvert Replacement X X 2C. Culvert Repair/Maintenance X X X 2D. Minor Culvert Relocation Where the Road or Trail Is Not Also Being Relocated X X 2E. Removal of Existing Culverts or Replacement with Rolling Dips Or Fords X X IS/MND 29 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Recommendations and Requirements Avoidance and Minimization Measures (By Resource) Documents That Contains the Measure CDFW SAA MPROSD BMPs for Avoid. and Minimize .for Bat Species San Mateo Coastal Annex. EIR Service Plan for San Mateo Coastal Annex. Area MPROSD Resource Management Policies MPROSD IPM Program Guidelines MPROSD IPM Program EIR Regulations for Use of MPROSD Lands RWQCB Waste Discharge and Water Qual Cert USFWS 10(a)1(A) Recovery Permit and Associated Biological Opinion 2F. New Culvert Installation (Non -Stream Crossing Culverts) X X 2G. Ford and Swale Replacement, Repair or Maintenance (Includes Drain Lenses and Causeways X X 2H. Bank Stabilization, Replacement, Repair, and Maintenance X X X 21. Implementation of Maintenance and Enhancement Activities Near Creeks and Streams X X X 2J. Integrated Pest Management Associated with the Use of Chemicals In and Near Creeks and Streams X X X X 3. Trail Construction and Maintenance (Project -Related) 3A. Routine Trail Maintenance X X X 3B. Vegetation Removal for Trail Maintenance X X X X 3C. Trail Construction and Siting X X X X 3D. Trail Drainage and Erosion Control X X 3E. Minor Trail Relocation X X X X 3F. Trail Closures and Restricting Use X X 3G. Permanent Trail Closure X X 3H. Exclusion Fencing for Federally -Listed Species X 31. Vegetation Removal to Maintain Trails, Roads or Staging Areas X X IS/MND 30 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Recommendations and Requirements Avoidance and Minimization Measures (By Resource) 4. Special -Status Plants Documents That Contains the Measure 0 N 0 0 M CD 0 •;'X- . X C 0 — R d ig 03 i01 O . N X X X 4A. Preconstruction Special -Status Plant Survey X 4B. Choris' Popcorn Flower: Rare Plant Exclusion X X X X 5. Salmonids 5A. General Anadromous Fish Avoidance and Minimization Measures X X X 5B. Enhance Habitat for Anadromous Fish X 5C. Monitor Sensitive Fish Species X 5D. Integrated Pest Management In and Near Fish Habitat X X 6. California Red -Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake 6A. Compliance with Federal Permits for CRLF and SFGS X X 6B. Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Ponds and Creeks and Streams X X X X X X 6C. Yearly Work Proposals for CRLF and SFGS Enhancement X X 6D. Biological Monitors X X 6E. Preconstruction Meeting and Construction Training X X 6F. Stop Work Authority for CRLF and SFGS X X 6G. CRLF and SFGS Preconstruction Surveys X X 6H. Egg Mass Avoidance X X IS/MND 31 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Recommendations and Requirements Avoidance and Minimization Measures (By Resource) Documents That Contains the Measure CDFW SAA MPROSD BMPs for Avoid. and Minimize .for Bat Species San Mateo Coastal Annex. EIR Service Plan for San Mateo Coastal Annex. Area MPROSD Resource Management Policies MPROSD IPM Program Guidelines MPROSD IPM Program EIR Regulations for Use of MPROSD Lands RWQCB Waste Discharge and Water Qual Cert USFWS 10(a)1(A) Recovery Permit and Associated Biological Opinion 61. Seasonal Work Period in Ponds X X 6J. Agency Notification of Enhancement Activities for CRLF and SFGS X X 6K. Vegetation Removal by Mechanized Equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS Sensitive Sites X X 6L. Vegetation Removal at Ponds X X X X X 6M. CRLF and SFGS Exclusion for Sediment Removal with Large Equipment X X 6N. No Stockpiling of Vegetation X 60. Vehicle Restrictions X X 6P. No Stockpiling of Soil X 6Q. Cease Activities for CRLF/SFGS in the Work Area X X 6R. CRLF Emergency Salvage and Recovery X 6S. CRLF and SFGS Reporting Requirements X X 6T. Integrated Pest Management in CRLF and SFGS Habitat X X X X 7. San Francisco Dusky -Footed Woodrat 7A. SFDW Protection Preconstruction Survey X X X 8. Special Status Bat Species 8A. Preconstruction Surveys X X X X IS/MND 32 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Recommendations and Requirements Avoidance and Minimization Measures (By Resource) 8B. Tree Removal Associated with Bats Documents That Contains the Measure 0 U X 0 0 0 M CD C co 8 C C — R d i01 0 0 .Z U CO X X -cs a) 0 0 R O a) " ceco 0- a Q N O a l0 al C f? C. R O E .2 LL co 8C. Non -Tree Roost Exclusion Associated with Bats X 9. Raptors and Birds 9A. Nesting Bird Surveys X X X 9B. Active Nests 9C. Active Nest Buffers X X X 9D. Nesting Habitat Removal or Modification X X X 10. Integrated Pest Management 10A. Invasive Animal Control X X X 10B. Vegetation Management X X X X 11. Grazing 11A. Use Grazing for Vegetation Management X X X X 11B. Use Grazing for Habitat Enhancement X X X 110. Grazing by Horses X IS/MND 33 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 34 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 \TP 9!1 O(Y) P.d6• n.\P. VIA � I UNITAS' CREE �.wodpSIDE,: EL CORTE DE MADERA , CREEK Toto Ranch Tunitas Creek OSP Exhibit A. Toto Ranch Regional Location Map Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Preserve (OSP) Other Protected Lands Private Property Watershed Land Land Trust Other Public Agency LA HONDA CREEK Toto Ranch 11111 San Mateo County Coastal Zone ® Miles PORTOLA \ VALLEY Pacifica Attac t San Oa - -kland Da`ville J F fco \\ San Ramon rancis San Leandro_ �Du�in_� Hayward /Union City 'Bellmont Frcite emont R oo Area C Detail Santa Cruz COAL L� CREEL, TRANC RUSSIAN RIDGE SKYLINE RIDGE MONTE BELLO Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) February 2019 0 2 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 36 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 (1101r)1 nma Exhibit B. Aerial Image of Toto Ranch with Topography Toto Ranch Property Boundary e Milesi 0 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) February 2019 0.25 0.5 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 38 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 r"'" V COO WC 211 P -M- • n•\Pr, Exhibit C. Toto Ranch - Farmstead Area (Agricultural and Residential Lease Areas) L Agricultural Lease Area Residential Lease Area Livestock Grazing Area ®/o Paved Road Unpaved All-Season/Seasonal Road Unmaintained Road Width Trail Milesi 0 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) February 2019 0.25 0.5 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 40 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 -c n c a c n c z Z L NIL Exhibit D.Toto Ranch - Farmstead Area Aerial (Agricultural and Residential Lease Areas) Residential Lease Boundary e Feet 0 150 300 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) August 2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 42 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 ,.PI,.,,\TR ;ie ')nnnam,.,,,,a P.,rl.• e C.00l.\T..r.,R.,o�L.\R.,,,.,ol.. -c Exhibit E. Toto Ranch - Soils Map - - - Colma Loam: 245.89 Acres Gazos and Lobitos Stony Loam: 23.47 Acres Gazos Loam: 57.34 Lobitos Loam: 96.31 Acres - - Tierra Loam: 438.96 Acres Tunitas Loam: 3.52 Acres Watsonville Loam: 3.53 Acres Gazos and Lobitos Soils: 0.0026 Acres - Mixed Alluvial Land: 11.15 Acres Terrace Escarpments: 1 .64 Acres Rough Broken Land: 45.65 Acres Miles. 0 0.25 0.5 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) August 2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 44 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 ure 20181221.mxd Created By ngreig While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 46 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 .,PI.,..\TP P, -,,AP., Exhibit G. Proposed Roadway Improvements Road Repair Locations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) August 2017 ® Miles 0 0.25 0.5 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 48 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Creek \TotoRanch\RangelandM Created By:ngreig Exhibit H. Toto Ranch - Proposed Infrastructure P7] Area Excluded From Rangeland Management Plan Fence (Existing/Proposed) Natural Barrier Water Distribution Line (Existing/Proposed) ® Water Trough (Existing/Proposed [Exact Location TBD]) Q Me Water Tank (Existing/Proposed [Exact Location TBD]) Spring (Existing/Proposed) Well Milesi 0 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) December 2018 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE 0.25 0.5 While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 50 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 52 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 0 V 0 V V 0 a 0 V Exhibit J. Toto Ranch Constraints Map Constraints not specified Drainage features, Proximity to water or Special Status Species, Sensitive soils, Riparian Steep areas with eroded soils, severely eroded soils, or drainage features Milesi 0 Attachment 8 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) November 2018 0.25 0.5 While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 54 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 On, ❑ 1 1/1, ....,,J c 0 ilk i I 1 d '�/I 1 %`�t°E Nt\\ Rp° .� i .' r n- u Exhibit K. Toto Ranch Obscured Special Status Species Locations L_J r— l J Grasshopper Sparrow Burrowing Owl Northern Harrier I J i J Choris's Popcorn Flower California Red -legged Frog American Badger e Miles 0 0.25 0.5 Attachment 8 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) November 2018 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 56 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Section 2 Initial Study Checklist The following discussion of potential environmental effects was completed in accordance with Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines to determine if the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment. 2.1 Project Information 1. Project title: 2. Lead agency name and address: 3. Contact person name, address, and phone number: 4. Project location: 5. Project sponsor's name and address: 6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022-1404 Aaron Peth, Planner III Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022-1404 (650) 691-1200/ apeth@openspace.org. 20800 Cabrillo Highway South, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California (Exhibit A) 081-060-101; 081-060-100; 081-060-110; 081-060-120 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022-1404 Agricultural Rural Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development (PAD/CD) Refer to Section 1, Project Description. Refer to Section 1.4, Environmental Setting. The implementation of the proposed improvements within Toto Ranch would require approval from: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Coastal Commission California Department of Fish and Wildlife IS/MND 57 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board County of San Mateo 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? No consultation has been requested. Refer to Section 2.4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND for details. IS/MND 58 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the Project, and mitigation measures are required to ensure a potential impact is less than significant. ❑ Aesthetics ❑x Biological Resources ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑x Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Transportation ❑ Wildfire ❑ Air Quality ❑ Energy ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑x Tribal Cultural Resources ❑x Mandatory Findings of Significance IS/MND 59 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.3 Lead Agency Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARA'T'ION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required. /:/�-/7 nature Date Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District IS/MND 60 October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 2.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts This section documents the screening process used to identify and focus upon environmental impacts that could result from this Project. The checklist portion of the IS begins below, with explanations of each CEQA issue topic. CEQA requires that an explanation of all answers be provided along with this checklist, including a discussion of ways to mitigate any significant effects identified. The following terminology describes the potential level of significance of impacts: • No Impact — The analysis concludes that the Project would not affect the particular resource in any way. • Less than Significant — The analysis concludes that the Project would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment without the incorporation of mitigation. • Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated — The analysis concludes that it would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of mitigation agreed upon by the applicant. • Potentially Significant — The analysis concludes that the Project could result a substantial adverse effect or significant effect on the environment, even if mitigation is incorporated. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IS/MND 61 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.1 Aesthetics Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a scenic highway? ❑ ■ X ❑ c. In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). ❑ ❑ @ ❑ d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ❑ @ Existing Conditions Toto Ranch is located within the County of San Mateo, just east of the Cabrillo Highway, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The Project area borders one (1) mile of the Cabrillo Highway, which has been designated as a state scenic highway along this corridor (Caltrans 2018). The highway supports sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean to the west with rolling grasslands and farmsteads to the east. Refer to Exhibit A. The Project area is considered to have high aesthetic value. The western portion of Toto Ranch may be seen from the Cabrillo Highway, with rolling grasslands and grazed rangelands that are heavily vegetated with coyote brush. The northern portion of the Project area includes creeks and large stands of riparian vegetation. Dry Creek flows along the northern boundary of the Project area, joining Tunitas Creek that flows south to the confluence, eventually meeting the Pacific Ocean to the west of the Cabrillo Highway. The remainder of the property is largely rolling grasslands and includes scrub habitat in the areas that are steep and support drainages, with a few stands of nonnative trees including eucalyptus, Monterey cypress and Monterey pine near the Farmstead Area. There are also a number of stock ponds throughout the Project area. The Farmstead Area includes a residential home and farm buildings with corrals, located at the center of the Project area. These facilities are used by the lessee who manages the Agricultural and Residential Lease Areas to support their personal livestock and agricultural business. Infrastructure within Toto Ranch includes water conveyance pipelines, water tanks, water troughs, wells, pond berms, pumps, unpaved roadways, trails, cattle guards and fencing to divide pastures that are interspersed throughout the Project area. The perimeter of the Project area is I S/M N D 62 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 enclosed by New Zealand style fencing, which includes wooden posts connected with smooth wire fencing, and natural barriers, including rocky slopes and dense vegetation. Within the Project area, fencing to establish pastures is largely New Zealand style, with some areas that support barbed wire. As described in Section 1.3, Project Area History and Background, Toto Ranch is owned by Midpen, an independent special district, and considered public property. In accordance with the PUMP (November 14, 2012), the property is designated as a closed area to the public. However, Midpen allows public access through Ranch Days, workshops and ranch visitation conducted by the tenant consistent with historical use patterns, subject to Midpen's permit requirements. In addition, Midpen allows docent -led hikes upon consideration of compatibility of limited public access with existing on -site factors, including grazing, natural resources, temporary parking and staging needs, and road and trail conditions. The adjacent properties to the north, east and south of Toto Ranch are primarily rolling hills dominated by grasslands with interspersed residential and farm buildings. Small beaches dot the coastline, accessible by local trails to the west. Some beaches provide public parking and access, while others are accessible only by unofficial footpaths. Discussion a. Scenic Vistas. Scenic vistas generally include areas that are designated by a local jurisdiction to have scenic or community value; however, scenic vistas may also include areas that have a high level of viewer sensitivity, such as a lookout point. The Project area provides both intermittent views of the Pacific Ocean from ridgetops throughout the Project area, and unobstructed views of the Pacific Ocean along the entirety of the western Project area boundary. However, these viewpoints are not currently accessible by the public. The Project area provides sweeping views of rolling grasslands from the Cabrillo Highway and other publicly accessible viewpoints. The San Mateo County General Plan establishes policies that guide land uses and development to protect sensitive views and scenic vistas. Views of the rolling hillsides and grasslands would not be impacted through implementation of the Project, and there would be no structures or changes in land uses that would obstruct views of the Pacific Ocean or adjacent open lands from within the Project area or the Cabrillo Highway. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. b. Scenic Resources along a Scenic Highway. The Cabrillo Highway has been identified as a state scenic highway for the one (1) mile that borders the Project area to the west. This area has been identified as the Cabrillo Highway Scenic Corridor through the San Mateo County General Plan. It is specified that these areas be protected, to the greatest extent feasible, throughout and following the implementation of a Project. IS/MND 63 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Project implementation would result in changes largely within the Project area that are not visible from the Cabrillo Highway or other public viewpoints, and that are outside of the area that has been identified as the Cabrillo Highway Scenic Corridor. However, changes in grazing practices and the removal of coyote brush, a non-native invasive plant, would occur along the hillsides that border Cabrillo Highway. Coyote brush may be removed through a variety of techniques, including mowing, mastication (chopping the brush with heavy machinery) and/or prescription fire. The removal and/or management of coyote brush would enhance the grassland habitat and restore views to those historically present along the coastline, enhancing views from the Cabrillo Highway. Although the implementation of coyote brush management activities would temporarily disrupt public views of the hillsides from Cabrillo Highway, implementation of the Project would result in a long-term beneficial impact to scenic resources as the grasslands along the hillsides are improved. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. c. Visual Character of Site and Surroundings. Project implementation would result in improvements to infrastructure throughout the Project area, including unpaved roadways, fencing, and water conveyance and holding features. These improvements would occur within the Project area and would not be visible from public viewpoints outside of the Project area. Furthermore, views from within the Project area would remain largely unchanged following the improvements to these features, as similar features are currently present throughout Toto Ranch. As discussed above, the removal of coyote brush within the Project area would restore the rolling grasslands throughout the Project area to more historical conditions, as coyote brush is a highly invasive non-native plant. Although removal activities would temporarily impact public views of the hillsides from the Cabrillo Highway, grasslands would quickly revegetate the hillsides and restore views of and within Toto Ranch. This would result in a long-term beneficial impact to the visual character of Project area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. d. New Sources of Light and Glare. Existing sources of light and glare within the Project area are limited to lighting from residential structures and agricultural buildings within the Farmstead Area. Implementation of the Project is not anticipated to introduce any new permanent sources of light into the Project area. All construction activities associated with implementation of specific improvements (e.g., fencing installation, roadway repairs) would be implemented during daylight hours and therefore would not introduce new light into the Project area. Short term increases in glare would occur throughout the implementation of these Projects from the sun reflecting off metallic surfaces of construction equipment. However, this increase in glare would be short term and would be largely unnoticed, as the majority of the Project area is not visible from the Cabrillo Highway or adjacent properties. Therefore, the Project would not create substantial new sources of light or glare within the Project vicinity that would impact day or nighttime views. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. IS/MND 64 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts on forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ X c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? ■ ■ ■ X e. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Existing Conditions Throughout the County of San Mateo, there are lands that have been identified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land on the San Mateo County Important Farmland 2016 map that has been developed by the State Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The Project area has been identified as supporting Grazing Land and Other Land on San Mateo County Important Farmland 2016 map. Grazing Lands are those lands on which the existing vegetation is suited for livestock grazing. Other Lands are those that are not included in any other mapping category and may support a IS/MND 65 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 variety of land uses. The lands within the Project area support brush, riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing, confined livestock, vegetation around water features, and small water bodies. The Project area has been identified as a Williamson Act — Non -Prime Agricultural Land. These are lands that have been enrolled under a California Land Conservation Act contract, but do not meet any of the criteria for classification as Prime Agricultural Land. Most of these lands support grazing and/or non -irrigated crops. These lands may also include open space uses which are compatible with agriculture and are consistent with local general plans. On July 16, 2012, the County of San Mateo Planning and Building Depai tanent received a request from Midpen for the Non -Renewal of the Williamson Act Contract, prior to the renewal/anniversary date of January 1, 2013. The contract will fully expire for Toto Ranch on December 31, 2021. Until this time, management of the lands will remain in compliance with the requirements of the Williamson Act Contract. San Mateo County has zoned the Project area as Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development District (PAD/CD) (County of San Mateo 2018a). This designation includes land uses that support existing and potential agricultural operations to maintain prime agricultural lands and lands suitable for agricultural uses (County of San Mateo 2018b). Discussion a. Conversion of Farmland to Non -Agricultural Use. There have been no lands within Toto Ranch that have been identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 2016). However, the lands within the Project area have been identified as Grazing Lands and Other Lands. Through implementation of the Project, infrastructure improvements would occur throughout the Project area, and coyote brush would be managed and/or removed from grasslands throughout the Project area. Land uses throughout the Project area would remain unchanged, and there would be no lands that would be used for or converted to non-agricultural purposes. Through the management and/or removal of coyote brush, grazing opportunities for livestock on Grazing Lands would be enhanced throughout the Project area, and there would be a beneficial impact on the quality of grazing that would be provided by the grasslands. Lands that have been identified as Other Lands would continue to support existing uses, and habitats would be enhanced throughout the Project area to support sensitive species (e.g., management of stock ponds for California red -legged frog). Therefore, there would be no impact. b. Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agriculture or a Williamson Act Contract. The Project area has been zoned as Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development District (PAD/CD). This designation includes land uses that support existing and potential agricultural operations to maintain prime agricultural lands and lands suitable for agricultural uses (County of San Mateo 2018). Implementation of the Project would result in infrastructure upgrades throughout the Project area, and enhancement of grazing lands through the maintenance and/or removal of I S/M N D 66 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 coyote brush. Lands within the Project area would therefore continue to be used for agricultural purposes and would be compliant with the existing zoning designation of PAD/CD. Toto Ranch has been identified as a Williamson Act — Non -Prime Agricultural Land. These are lands that have been enrolled under a California Land Conservation Act contract, but do not meet any of the criteria for classification as Prime Agricultural Land. Through these agreements, San Mateo County enters into contracts with landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses. Toto Ranch would continue to support the existing agricultural and open use land uses following Project implementation. Agricultural infrastructure upgrades and the management and/or removal of coyote brush would enhance grazing opportunities throughout the Project area, and existing land uses would not be changed. Therefore, Project area land uses would remain in compliance with the requirements of the Williamson Act Contract that is in place for Toto Ranch. Furthermore, as discussed above, the Williamson Act Contract has been requested for Non -Renewal by Midpen, and the Contract is set to fully expire on December 31, 2021. Because agricultural and open space land uses would remain the same following Project implementation, and because the proposed improvement Projects would result in the enhancement of agricultural related infrastructure and grazing lands and thus the quality of the agricultural land uses within Toto Ranch, there would be no conflict with existing zoning or Williamson Act Contract requirements. Therefore, there would be no impact. c. Conflict with Existing Zoning for Forest or Timberland. As described above, the Project area is zoned PAD/CD and includes land uses that support existing and potential agricultural operations to maintain prime agricultural lands and lands suitable for agricultural uses (County of San Mateo 2018). The Project area is not zoned for and does not support forest or timberlands. Although there are riparian corridors that border Dry and Tunitas Creeks along the northern Project boundary and drainages throughout the steep topography of the Project area, there are also stands of nonnative eucalyptus, Monterey cypress and Monterey pine trees within and adjacent to the Farmstead Area. These lands would not be impacted as a result of Project implementation and would continue to support riparian corridors and trees. Therefore, there would be no impact on the existing zoning for the Project area, and no conflicts with forest or timberland designations. d. Result in the Loss or Conversion of Forest Land. As stated above, the Project area does not support forest lands, but there are trees located along riparian corridors and drainages within and adjacent to the Farmstead Area. Through Project implementation, the trees throughout the Project area would be preserved, and there would be no changes in land uses that would impact these trees. Therefore, there would be no impact on forest lands throughout the Project area. IS/MND 67 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 e. Result in the Conversion of Farmland or Forest Land to Non -Agricultural or Non -Forest Uses. As stated above, implementation of the Project would result in infrastructure improvements to support agricultural and grazing practices throughout Toto Ranch, and there would be no conversion of farmlands or forest land to non-agricultural or non -forest land uses. Although there are trees throughout the Project area, primarily near creeks/drainages and the Farmstead Area, the trees throughout the Project area would be preserve through Project implementation, and there would be no changes in land uses that would impact these trees, or convert these lands to areas that would not support trees. Because implementation of the Project would enhance lands to support agricultural and grazing land uses, and all riparian corridors and stands of trees would remain unchanged as a result of Project implementation, there would be no conversion of farmland or forest land to non- agricultural or non -forest uses, and there would be no impact. I S/M N D 68 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.3 Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ❑ ❑ X ❑ c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Existing Conditions Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants. The State of California, under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), has established standards for criteria pollutants that are generally stricter than federal standards. The USEPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as being in "attainment," "nonattainment," or "unclassified" for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. The six criteria pollutants are listed in Table 3. Toto Ranch is located within San Mateo County in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Basin), under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD is responsible for air monitoring, permitting, enforcement, long-range air quality planning, regulatory development, education and public information activities related to air pollution, as required by the CCAA and Amendments. The BAAQMD Clean Air Plan is the applicable air quality plan for the Project area. The Basin is in non -attainment for federal and state ozone and PM2.5 standards, and state PMio standards (BAAQMD 2017a). The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the 2010 Clean Air Plan. As described in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a Project that does not support the goals of the Clean Air Plan would not be considered consistent with the plan. To fulfill state ozone planning requirements, the 2017 control strategies include all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors —reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (N00 —and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the Clean Air Plan builds upon IS/MND 69 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 and enhances the BAAQMD efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants (TACs) (BAAQMD 2017a). Sensitive Land Uses According to San Mateo County Health Department2, sensitive receptors are people or other organisms that may have a significantly increased sensitivity or exposure to contaminants by virtue of their age and health (e.g., schools, daycare centers, hospitals) and status (e.g., sensitive or endangered species). The location of sensitive receptors, which is associated with land uses, must be identified in order to evaluate the potential impact on public health and the environment. The BAAQMD generally defines a sensitive receptor land uses as residences including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters; education resources such as preschools and kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) schools; daycare centers; and health care facilities such as hospitals or retirement and nursing homes. A sensitive receptor also includes long-term care hospitals, hospices, prisons, and dormitories or similar live-in housing (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2012). Sensitive receptors within the Project area include the lessees who reside within the Residential Lease Area and workers that support the agricultural practices of the lessee within the Residential Lease and Agricultural Lease Areas. Discussion a. Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of an Air Quality Plan. The BAAQMD Clean Air Plan is the applicable air quality plan for the Project area. The Basin is in non -attainment for federal and state ozone and PM2.5 standards, and state PMio standards (BAAQMD 2017a). The Clean Air Plan strategies that apply to construction activities include compliance with BAAQMD dust control measures (BAAQMD Regulation 6 Rule 6) and CARB emissions standards for construction equipment. BAAQMD Measures MSM-C 1 and TR22 apply to construction and farming equipment, but focus on BAAQMD efforts to incentivize equipment upgrades to reduce emissions, rather than requirements for equipment operators. As described in Section 1.5.3, implementation of the proposed Project includes construction BMPs in accordance with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Construction BMPs Program, which are consistent with applicable BAAQMD and CARB regulations. The diesel -powered equipment associated with Project activities, such as the road repairs and pond management actions, would comply with dust control and emissions reductions requirements of the Clean Air Plan and, therefore, would result in emissions below BAAQMD thresholds. Following construction, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in 2 San Mateo County Health Sensitive Receptor Survey. www.smchealth.org/sites/main/files/file- attach ments/651311584receptor_su rvey. pdf I S/M N D 70 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 vehicle or energy -related emissions or introduce any new sources of TACs. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Clean Air Plan, and the impacts to the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. b. Violate Air Quality Standards or Contribute to an Air Quality Violation. Construction activities would result in temporary increases in air pollutant emissions from vehicle trips and/or construction equipment. Planned Project activities that would require diesel -powered construction equipment or truck trips to import materials include, but are not limited to: • Roadway repairs, • New fencing installation, • Water infrastructure improvements, and • Pond management activities. Project construction emissions were estimated using the Ca1EEMod Model, version 2016.3.2, based on construction information provided by Midpen. Detailed assumptions and modeling data sheets are provided in Appendix C. Maximum daily emissions levels associated with construction of the proposed Project are shown in Table 3 and compared to BAAQMD thresholds. To estimate the worst -case construction emissions, it is assumed that diesel -powered construction equipment would be required for all improvement and pond management Projects. As shown in Table 3, the Project would not generate construction emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD threshold during implementation of any of the improvement Projects or pond management actions. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not have a significant cumulative impact on the attainment and maintenance of ozone or particulate matter NAAQS, and this impact would be less than significant. The BAAQMD does not identify quantitative thresholds for CO or SOx emissions during construction, and the San Francisco Basin is in attainment for these standards. Construction vehicle related SOx emissions from Project area improvement and pond management actions would be minimal. Based on the emissions of other pollutants compared to the BAAQMD thresholds, emissions of CO would also be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to criteria pollutant emissions during construction. No mitigation would be required. IS/MND 71 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 3. Estimated Construction Daily Maximum Air Pollutant Emissions Improvement VOC NO, CO SOX PMio PM2.5 Pounds per Day (Ibs/day) Roadway Repairs 1 23 13 <1 3 1 New Fencing 1 6 5 <1 1 <1 Agricultural Lease Water Line 5 50 32 <1 18 6 Field 3 Water System 1 11 11 <1 2 1 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 -- -- 82 54 Significant? No No -- -- No No Note: Emission quantities are rounded to the nearest whole number. Exact values are provided in Appendix C. PM10 — Particulate Matter less than 10 microns PM2.5 — Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns NOx — Oxides of Nitrogen SOx — Oxides of Sulfur CO — Carbon Monoxide VOC — Volatile organic compounds c. Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. The proposed Project outlines a plan for continued grazing operations of Toto Ranch that would involve construction of several Project area improvements and pond management actions to support this practice. Within the Project area, the lessees and workers associated with their agricultural business are considered sensitive receptors. Water infrastructure improvements and fencing replacement would occur within close proximity to these receptors throughout Project implementation (Exhibit H). Land uses surrounding the Project site include a number of sprawling grazed pastures with associated residences and agricultural related structures. However, no residences are located in the immediate vicinity of an improvement or pond management area. The closest residence to a proposed improvement site is located on Tunitas Creek Road, approximately 900 feet north of the nearest improvement area (fence installation) (Exhibit 11). Construction related actions that would be required for each improvement Project or pond management action would occur over a relatively short period, ranging from 4-6 weeks at most. As shown in Table 3, emissions from the construction of each improvement Project and pond management action would be below BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, any sensitive receptors that were exposed to Project related emissions as a result of Project improvement or pond management actions would be exposed for a short period of time, and emissions would be minimal. Impacts to sensitive receptors would therefore be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. d. Result in Other Emissions (Odors) Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People. Construction of the proposed improvement Projects and pond management activities would potentially result in odors from diesel construction equipment exhaust. However, all diesel equipment use would be intermittent, and construction activities near existing receptors within the Farmstead Area would be temporary. SOX is the only criteria air pollutant with a strong, pungent odor (ATSDR 2015). As shown in Table 3 and Table 4, maximum emissions of SOx would be less than one pound per day throughout improvement Projects or pond management I S/M N D 72 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 activities. Following construction, other operational odors, such as those from livestock, would be similar to existing conditions, as the number of cattle utilizing the site would not increase beyond existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to odor. No mitigation would be required. Table 4. Estimated Pond Management Maximum Air Pollutant Emissions Pond Size VOC NOx CO SOx PMto PM2.5 Pounds per Day (Ibs/day) Small Pond 1 5 5 <1 2 1 Very Small Pond 1 5 5 <1 2 1 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 -- -- 82 54 Significant? No No -- -- No No Notes: Emission quantities are rounded to the nearest whole number. Exact values are provided in Appendix C. PM10 — Particulate Matter less than 10 microns PM25 — Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns NO — Oxides of Nitrogen SOx — Oxides of Sulfur CO — Carbon Monoxide VOC — Volatile organic compounds IS/MND 73 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.4 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? ❑ X ❑ ■ 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ X ❑ c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ X ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ X ❑ 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 In order to establish a baseline for the natural resources present throughout Toto Ranch, Harris biologists reviewed existing information that was available for the Project area. A field survey was then undertaken to confirm the existing information and evaluate the natural resources present throughout Toto Ranch. The methodology for establishing the environmental setting and the results of research and field survey are provided below. Existing Data and Field Studies Existing Reports Harris biologists conducted interviews with Midpen staff to determine relevant documents and existing field data that was available for Toto Ranch. Information included existing documents and resource maps that included the Project area and adjacent lands, literature on natural IS/MND 74 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 resources in San Mateo County and the greater San Francisco Bay Area, and documents related to general natural resource management that have been previously developed for Midpen, including the following. • Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (1999) • San Mateo Coastal Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report (2002) • Service Plan for the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Area (2002) • RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certifications for Routine Maintenance Activities for Mid -Peninsula Open Space District, Order No. R2-2010-0083 (2010) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Integrated Pest Management Program Environmental Impact Report (2014) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual (2014) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Resource Management Policies (2018) • Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands (2014) • USFWS Intra-Service Biological Opinion on the issuance of a 10(a)1(A) permit to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the San Francisco Garter Snake and California Red -Legged Frog Habitat Enhancement Projects at their Open Space Preserves in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, California (2016) • USFWS Native Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Permit (2016) • CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification No 1600-2012-0444-R3 (2018) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Toto Ranch Bat Roost and Acoustic Survey (2018) Natural Resources Databases Harris biologists queried natural resource databases for information about special -status species that could occur in or near the Project area, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database, California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) occurrence records for special -status plants and wildlife occurrences within or near the Project area, and other relevant documents or communications from resource specialists. A comprehensive list of special -status species that occur or may occur at Toto Ranch is included in Appendix D. Field Surveys A reconnaissance level survey of the Project area was conducted on October 19, 2018, by Harris biologists. The entire Project area, including areas identified for improvement Projects in the RMP and stock ponds, were evaluated for the potential to support sensitive biological resources IS/MND 75 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 and potential Projects on these resources. This information was then used to refine the existing information for Toto Ranch that had been reviewed in reports and natural resources databases. Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Management goals and objectives for Toto Ranch, as well as specific actions to achieve them, are outlined in the RMP. However, management actions in the RMP are subject to refinement, restrictions, and requirements set forth in other relevant guiding documents (listed above). In addition to management actions, specific Projects have been identified in the RMP that would improve the infrastructure of the property, including erosion control, fencing, watering troughs and pipelines, and road repairs. These improvements would improve the ability of Midpen and the grazing lessee to access and manage the property, while protecting the land from excessive erosion and other impacts. Because of the wide distribution of habitats and sensitive resources throughout the Project area, implementation of the different management techniques prescribed in the RMP must be considered and administered thoughtfully and strategically. The locations of sensitive resources, including areas with multiple resources and/or constraints, must be identified; and then the management techniques and timing must be adjusted in order to ensure the protection of these resources and areas (i.e., adaptive management). In order to identify the more highly constrained areas, the locations of sensitive resources were identified on a map of Toto Ranch using Midpen's existing geographic information system (GIS) files. Sensitive resources that were analyzed included erodible soils, steep slopes, locations of special -status species, wetlands and other natural water features, and their associated riparian zones. ArcMap 10.6 was used to overlay the locations of all sensitive resources, and a spatial analysis was used to identify areas with numerous sensitive species, sensitive resources, or geologic hazards (Exhibits J and K). Although no formal weighting process was used in the analysis, general knowledge of the resources and their importance were used in conjunction with the spatial analysis to determine areas in which grazing or other RMP-identified activities should be eliminated or constrained. The results of these analyses have been considered for both development of the Project description and the biological resources impact analysis below. Existing Conditions A short summary of the vegetation and wildlife species that occur within Toto Ranch that may be located in areas affected by the RMP have been included below. Additional information pertaining to these species is included in the RMP (Appendix A). In addition, a list of plant species identified by botanists during field surveys and monitoring over several years is included as Appendix D, and a list of bird species encountered by biologists is included in Appendix D. I S/M N D 76 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Vegetation Habitats Toto Ranch has a diverse assemblage of native and non-native plant species and habitats in the following six habitat types: non-native grassland; coastal prairie; chaparral/scrub; non -redwood forest; perennial and intermittent streams and associated riparian habitat; and marshes, wetlands, ponds, and lakes. Specific descriptions of these habitats, as well as the Farmstead Area (Residential Lease Area and Agricultural Lease Area), are included below. To support consistency with existing Midpen documents, the general habitat headings are the same as those used in the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report, which characterizes open areas and habitats in San Mateo for potential annexation by Midpen (2002a). Within the general habitat types, a list of specific habitats that Midpen uses for detailed vegetative mapping (and that are used in their GIS database) is included to provide a reference for maps, monitoring, and other biological documents. Agricultural Lands The Farmstead Area is not included in the RMP (Exhibits C and D). However, there are a number of management actions in the RMP that may affect the agricultural lands within it, including water infrastructure and fencing improvements; and there are a number of land use practices in this area that may affect neighboring habitats within the Livestock Grazing Area. The agricultural lands within the Farmstead Area are highly disturbed due to constant use by humans and domesticated animals. The infrastructure, including the residence, barns and other outbuildings, corrals, holding pens, and other fencing, are used to support concentrated agricultural practices. The soils are highly compacted and include fill such as granite base rock, manure and other vegetative and animal waste products are prevalent, and non-native, ruderal plant species dominate this area. Non -Native Grasslands (California Annual Grassland Series) Much of California's grasslands are dominated by naturalized annual grasses that were originally introduced by European setters and livestock. These grass species are typically fast growing with large seed heads and shallow root systems. Annual grasses often co-occur with non-native forb/herbaceous species. Species found in annual grassland habitat include native California poppy (Eschscholzia californica) and nonnative wild oats (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), wall barley (Hordeum murinum), and foxtail fescue (Vulpia myuros var. hirsuta). Common forbs such as broadleaf filaree (Erodium botrys), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), turkey mullein (Croton setiger), and California bur -clover (Medicago polymorpha) are also present in this habitat. IS/MND 77 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Annual grasslands are found throughout Toto Ranch on the ridges and more gently sloping topography. Encroachment by scrub species, such as coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), occurs in many areas, reducing the amount, quality and quantity of the forage. Coastal Prairie Coastal prairie habitat is composed of perennial grasses and tall, temperate perennial graminoids—herbaceous plants that are morphologically similar to grasses. These species typically have long, large root systems, a bunching form, and are adapted to moderate grazing and drought conditions. Common perennial grass species found in this habitat include California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), Pacific hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. holciformis), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), snakeroot (Ageratina altissima), coast gum plant (Grindelia stricta var. platyphylla), poverty rush (Juncus tenuis), common woodrush (Luzula multiflora), squawroot (Conopholis americana) and fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher) (Heady et al. 1977). This habitat typically occurs on ridges and south -facing slopes, and between patches of forest or scrub within valleys and on north -facing slopes (Heady et al. 1977). There is one small pocket of coastal prairie habitat that occurs within Toto Ranch. This habitat is sparse, low - growing, and faces the Pacific Ocean on a gentle slope. Chaparral/Scrub Specific chaparral/scrub habitats mapped in Toto Ranch are named for the dominant species present, and include: blue blossom-Jimbrush scrub, chaparral -coastal scrub transition, coastal bluff scrub, chamise chaparral, mesic deciduous shrubs, and coyote brush (including coastal fringe, mesic stands, open stands, xeric stands, and dwarf coyote brush prairie habitat types). All six of these specific types of chaparral/scrub are dominated by low to moderate -sized shrubs with mesophytic leaves, flexible branches, semi -woody stems growing from a woody base, and a shallow root system (Harrison et al. 1971; Bakker 1972). Some of the species in these habitats show varying degrees of succulence as an adaptation for water conservation. Structure and composition differ among habitat types and stands, and in most cases, shrubs are interspersed with annual herbs and grasses. Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), chemise (Adenostoma fascicultum), lilac (Ceanothus spp.), California coffeeberry (Frangula californica), salal (Gaultheria shallon), bush monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and common woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatumare) are common plant species at Toto Ranch. Western bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), cowparsnip (Heracleum maximum), Monterey coast paintbrush (Castilleja latifolia), yerba buena (Clinopodium douglasii), and California oatgrass (Danthonia californica) are often present in the understory (Heady et al. 1977). Proximity to the Pacific Ocean and coastline result in consistent exposure to nearly constant winds high in salt content, often resulting in low -growing forms of the species. I S/M N D 78 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 At Toto Ranch, most growth and flowering of chaparral/scrub species occur in late spring and early summer but can occur almost year-round. At Toto Ranch, chaparral/scrub habitats are located both on terraces and in drainages, and can be sparse and low -growing, or dense and tall. More dense stands tend to be on the steep slopes and drainages, and function as riparian and transitional habitat. Chaparral/scrub habitat often occurs on rocky and poorly developed soils. Plant species characteristic of the most common chaparral/scrub types are listed below. Characteristic Species of Coastal Bluff Scrub Habitats at Toto Ranch include: • Early hair grass (Aira praecox) • Coast onion (Allium dichlamydeum) • Seaside fiddleneck (Amsinckia spectblis var. spectabilis) • California sea pink (Armeria maritima var. californica) • Monterey coast paintbrush (Castilleja latifolia) • Point Reyes Ceanothus (Ceanothus gloriosus var. gloriosus) • Coastal California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum) • Seaside woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum staechadifolium) • Gum plant (Grindelia stricta) • Rough cats -ear (Hypochoeris radicata) • California goldfields (Lasthenia californica subsp. californica)) • Varied lupine (Lupinus varicolor) • Sea plantain (Plantago maritima) • Leathery polypody (Polypodium scouleri) • Media sandspurry (Spergularia maritima) Species Characteristic of Chemise Chaparral include: • Chemise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) • Big berry manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca) • Woollyleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos tomentosa) • Whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos viscida) • Buck brush (Ceanothus var. cuneatus cuneatus) • Wartleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus papillosus) • Mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides) • Bush poppy (Dendromecon rigida) • California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) • California yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum) • Deerweed (Acmispon glaber) I S/M N D 79 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 • Hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) • Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) • Sugar bush (Rhus ovata) • Laurel sumac (Rhus laurina) • White sage (Salvia apiana) • Black sage (Salvia mellifera) • Ashy spike -moss (Selaginella cinerascens) • Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera) • Chaparral yucca (Yucca whipplei) Characteristic Species of Coyote Brush Scrub include: • Coastal mugwort (Artemisia suksdorfii) • Coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) • "Yankee Point" Carmel ceanothus (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus var. griseus) • Seaside daisy (Erigeron glaucus) • Seaside woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum staechadifolium) • Salal bush (Gaultheria shallon) • Common cowparsnip (Heracleum maximum) • Douglas iris (Iris douglasiana) • Orange bush monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus) • Wood rose (Rosa gymnocarpa) • Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) • Western poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) • Pacific dewberry (Rubus vitifolius) • California huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) Non -Redwood Forest The San Mateo Coastal Annexation (Coastside) Draft EIR (2002a) lists one forest type at Toto Ranch, "Non -redwood forest." Non -redwood forest is a general term and can be made more specific using Midpen's vegetation mapping habitat names. At Toto Ranch, non -redwood forests include Eucalyptus Series and Planted Stands of Pine Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) (Midpen 2002a). Both of these "forests" are moderately dense and occur in small pockets as opposed to broad expanses or large, contiguous stands. The eucalyptus are invasive, non-native species. The planted stands of Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) are considered non -local, invasive species of cultivar origins by Midpen. I S/M N D 80 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Eucalyptus Series At least ten species of Eucalyptus species occur in California: Eucalyptus camaldulensis, E. citriodora, E. cladocalyx, E. conferruminata, E. globulus, E. polyanthemos, E. pulchella, E. sideroxylon, E. tereticornis, and E. viminalis (Manual of California Vegetation 2009). Eucalyptus globulus, blue gum, has a California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) rate of Limited, based on the level of its negative ecological impacts on California. Midpen rates Eucalyptus globulus as having a Moderate negative ecological impact on coastal ecosystems. Eucalyptus were introduced in the late 1800s when they were commercially planted for lumber and firewood (Bulman 1988, Groenendaal 1983). Seedlings may aggressively invade neighboring habitats where adequate moisture is available, and growth from stumps is rapid after cutting or falling eucalyptus trees. Allelopathic chemicals build up in the soils underneath large trees and stands of eucalyptus, inhibiting the growth of understory species. Eucalyptus occur in and near the Farmstead Area near the residence, and in one or two small stands in drainages. Planted Stands of Pine (Monterey Pine and Monterey Cypress) Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) are coastal conifers that can grow to a height of 25 meters. Individual trees and groves are shaped by salt and wind that blow onshore along the coastline, and stands that occur a short distance inland are taller and straighter (Manual of California Vegetation 2009). In many places in northern California, stands of Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) support overwintering populations of monarch butterflies (Griffiths and Villablanca 2013). As discussed above in Non -Redwood Forest, both Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) and Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) have been widely planted as cultivars and are considered to be a non -local invasive species at Toto Ranch. There are a small number of these planted stands at Toto Ranch. One stand is located near the entrance to the property, and a few others are located inland, spread along the main ridge of the property. Perennial and Intermittent Streams and Associated Riparian Habitat Riparian habitats are those associated with saturated soils and water features. The specific riparian habitats mapped at Toto Ranch include: Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed Willow Series, Red Alder Riparian Forest, and Poison Oak Chaparral. Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest and Mixed Willow Series Willow plant communities are composed of dense, low -growing, broadleaved, deciduous trees and tree -like shrubs that are named for the species that dominates the canopy (e.g., arroyo willow riparian forest (Salix lasiolepis). Willows need consistent water and tolerate saturated soils. They IS/MND 81 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 are found along low -gradient stream reaches or dune slack ponds near the foggy coast. Species that co-occur with arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis) include white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), wax myrtle (Morella californica), and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra). At Toto Ranch, this community occurs on wet, friable soils along the intermittent streams and Tunitas Creek. Red Alder Riparian Forest Red alders (Alnus rubra) are broad-leaved trees that form a dense monoculture up to 25 meters tall in rich soils, especially on bottomlands, along streams, or near hillside seeps. They are also able to tolerate poorly aerated, marshy soils at the edges of marshes. The understory in these forests depends on the conditions at the site; in dense stands the understory is nonexistent or sparse, and in areas with less disturbances (e.g., flooding), the understory can form dense stands of shrubs. Characteristic species in this habitat include elk clover (Aralia californica), dogwood (Cornus spp.), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and willow (Salix spp.). Red alder riparian forest is found in dense contiguous stands along the banks of Tunitas Creek and in the lower sections of drainages near their confluence with Tunitas Creek. Poison Oak Chaparral Although poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) can be found in upland areas at Toto Ranch, poison oak chaparral occurs in drainages and is associated with the intermittent streams and steep slopes of the drainages. These stands can be dense and form a monoculture, or these stands can be found interspersed with other chaparral and scrub habitats within the riparian zone. Marshes, Wetlands, Ponds, and Lakes There are fourteen (14) ponds and wetlands within Toto Ranch. The margins of most of these ponds are bare soil because of cattle grazing. Cattle eat emergent vegetation and trample plants at the edge of ponds. Some of the ponds do support limited emergent vegetation. The habitat types found in ponds at Toto Ranch are undifferentiated marsh (cattails and bulrush/tules) and open water. Undifferentiated Marsh (Cattails and Bulrush/Tules) Broad-leaved cattails (Typha latifolia) are an emergent perennial plant that grows to 1.5 m in height. Cattails occur in seasonal or perennial flooded freshwater or brackish marshes with clayey or silty soils. It has a distinctive inflorescence that looks like a brown spike. Plants can reproduce mainly via rhizomes that terminate in additional leafy shoots, although seeds can disperse long distances via wind and water. Cattails are biennial and die after fruiting in their second year. Hybridization with other Typha species is common when they grow in mixed stands, making identification difficult (Smith 2000). There are two types of tules that occur in California, Schoenoplectus acutus and S. californicus. Tules are hollow and can grow to three meters in height. Tule seeds are dispersed by water and birds. Seeds undergo a period of ripening and can remain dormant when submerged in water, I S/M N D 82 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 forming a seed bank. Tules are found in both brackish and freshwater marshes, along stream shores, bars, and channels of river mouth estuaries, around ponds and lakes, in sloughs, swamps, and roadside ditches. These inundated soils have a high organic content and are poorly aerated. At Toto Ranch, undifferentiated marsh habitat contains both cattails (Typha latifolia) and tules, (Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis) and is found in only one pond just north of the main drive into the property. Tules tend to dominate on the outer, more -exposed edges of marshes adjacent to open water, with cattails populating the pond margins. However, both species also can co -dominate in stands. Open Water (Pond) Open water habitat includes the main channel of creeks and streams and portions of lakes, ponds, and backwaters that remain permanently flooded all year and appear <10 percent vegetated (EPA 2012). At Toto Ranch, open water habitat occurs within the fourteen (14) ponds and wetlands throughout the property. Special -Status Plant Species Special -status plants are species that are listed and/or protected under the federal or state endangered species acts; California Fish and Game Code; California Native Plant Protection Act, identified by California Native Plant Society as rare, protected under CEQA, or identified by Midpen staff as species of concern. Refer to the Regulatory Setting section below for a list of applicable regulatory protections and Appendix E for a description of the regulatory protections. A table of special -status species identified by the CNDDB as occurring on or within 5 miles of Toto Ranch is included in Appendix D. Choris' Popcorn Flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements Choris' popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus) is a small, annual herb of the Boraginaceae family that is endemic to California's Alameda, Monterey, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. It blooms between March and June, displaying small white flowers. Choris' popcorn flower inhabits wet, grassy areas in wetland -riparian, coastal prairie, coastal scrub and chaparral habitats below 650 meters. Choris' popcorn flower is moderately threatened in California (CNPS rank 1B.2) and is eligible for state listing as an endangered species (CNPS 2018). This species seems to benefit from low to medium levels of disturbance which create open areas. More information on the status and biology of Choris' popcorn flower is provided online at the California Native Plant Society website: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/detail/1382.html. IS/MND 83 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Occurrence in the Project Area Choris' popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus) is found in eight locations at Toto Ranch near the top of a ridge near the middle of the property, and at the southern property boundary. The populations are on and along road/trail margins and in seepy areas that retain water in the soils for prolonged periods of time. Wildlife Toto Ranch and the surrounding areas are in a rural setting that offers contiguous undeveloped lands and diverse habitats with reduced/limited barriers to wildlife movement, compared to more urbanized parts of the Bay Area. Relative openness and lack of human disturbance supports diversity of common wildlife species and provides larger swaths with habitat for special -status species. Common species (by general habitat type) and special -status species known or expected to occur at Toto Ranch are discussed below. Common Species (By Habitat) Agricultural Lands As discussed above in the Vegetation section, the Farmstead Area is not included in the RMP (Exhibits C and D), although domestic animals (e.g., cattle, horses) are routinely moved between the Agricultural Lease Area and the rest of Toto Ranch. The agricultural lands support the production of domestic livestock, including cattle, sheep, poultry, and horses. At times, less common domesticated species, such as llamas, are raised at Toto Ranch. Due to the rural setting of the property and proximity to native habitats, native species from adjacent habitats may pass through or near the residence, corrals, and other infrastructure of this area. These species are listed and discussed below by habitat. Non -Native Grasslands Annual grasslands provide forage, cover, and nesting habitat for a variety of animal species, including: western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), coast garter snake (Thamnophis elegans terrestris), western rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus), black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), American badger (Taxidea taxus), coyote (Canis latrans), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius) (Basey and Sinclear 1980, White et al. 1980, Verner et al. 1980). Non-native grasslands support many small burrowing mammals, such as California ground - squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and California vole (Microtus californicus). Specifically, the burrows dug by ground squirrels provide important habitat for special -status species, including burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) and, IS/MND 84 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 more commonly at Toto Ranch, American badger (Taxidea taxus). California red -legged frog and San Francisco garter snake also take refuge in burrows to escape predators or to aestivate during the hot, dry California summers. Coastal Prairie Coastal prairies, which support more California native grasses and forbs than annual grasslands, are the primary habitat for a variety of native reptiles, birds, and mammals. Wildlife usually found in this habitat include: coast garter snake (Thamnophis elegans terrestris), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), barn owl (Tyto alba), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), (Harris and Harris 1979), Townsend's mole (Scapanus townsendii), coast mole (Scapanus orarius), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), California vole (Microtus californicus), long-tailed vole (Microtus longicaudus), and Oregon vole (Microtus oregoni) (Mossman 1979). Perennial grasslands also provide foraging habitat for the red-tailed hawk (Buteojamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana) (Harris and Harris 1979), fringe -tailed bat (Myotis thysanodes), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), coyote, black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), and black -tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) (Mossman 1979). Although much smaller in size and distribution at Toto Ranch, it is possible (especially if coastal prairie habitat is expanded or restored in other parts of Toto Ranch) for coastal prairie to support California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and the species that utilize their burrows, including western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii), and San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). Chaparral/Scrub The various types of chaparral/scrub habitats discussed above all support similar types of common wildlife species. Chaparral and scrub habitat provide canopy, nectar sources, leaf litter, and other natural features contributed by woody -stemmed plants. San Francisco dusky -footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) build their nests in chaparral/scrub habitats. Nectar feeders like bees and hummingbirds utilize flowers on scrub species. Birds and bats may forage for insects over scrub habitats, and small and medium-sized mammals utilize the cover and resources provided by this habitat. Additional species common in chaparral habitats in this region include: deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), California vole (Microtus californicus), shrew -mole (Neurotrichus gibbsii), black -tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), California mouse (Peromyscus californicus), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), gopher snake IS/MND 85 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 (Pituophis catenifer), raccoon (Procyon lotor), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), and coyote (Canis latrans). Non -Redwood Forest The small stands of trees at Toto Ranch are the only tall tree -height vegetation on the property. As such, these stands would be the only features to support tree -roosting bats and birds of prey. Birds of prey are common and may be larger than expected at Toto Ranch due to the presence of non-native/non-local trees and adjacent large expanses of grassland for hunting. Raptors are often seen perching/roosting in the tall trees. A survey for bats was conducted by Midpen biologists in 2018, and results indicate no evidence of roosting bats in forests at Toto Ranch. Several bat species were detected in flight, including California myotis (Myotis californicus), Mexican free -tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), long-legged myotis (Myotis Volans), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). No special -status bats were detected. Other common species of wildlife that would utilize the small forest habitat include migratory birds such as band -tailed pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), Pacific slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), and Swainson's thrush (Catharus ustulatus). Trees would also provide habitat and cover for larger mammals such as coyote, mountain lion (Felis concolor), black -tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). In addition, animals from surrounding habitats may also utilize areas under the tree canopy; these species are listed above in Coastal Prairie and Non -Native Grasslands Wildlife discussion. Perennial and Intermittent Streams and Associated Riparian Habitat Toto Ranch supports three intermittent streams, which drain into Tunitas Creek, a perennial creek at the northern boundary of the property. Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are known to occur in Tunitas Creek (see the following discussion under Steelhead) upstream to approximately 6 miles from the river mouth. California red -legged frog (CRLF) (Rana draytonii) are also known to occur in Tunitas Creek and likely use the intermittent creeks and riparian corridors to move throughout Toto Ranch and between ponds (see the following discussion under Ponds). The creeks and streams provide valuable water sources for wildlife. In addition, the riparian vegetation and corridor provide cover for wildlife species, especially because the grasslands and chaparral/scrub habitats are low -growing and open. Species that are likely to use the riparian corridors are the same as those that occupy adjacent communities and are discussed in the Coastal Prairie and Non -Native Grasslands Wildlife sections, above. I S/M N D 86 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Ponds There are fourteen (14) ponds and wetlands throughout Toto Ranch. They provide aquatic habitat for CRLF and other amphibians, potential habitat for SFGS, and drinking water sources for wildlife species and cattle. Most ponds do not support emergent vegetation. Only one (1) pond was mapped as having cattail/tule emergent vegetation. Nonetheless, the ponds do support breeding CRLF within them. CRLF also travel overland through grasslands and open scrub habitat to get from pond to pond, and into the intermittent drainages that traverse the property. Ponds also support and attract insects, providing foraging habitat for insectivorous birds and bats, such as black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Pacific -slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), California myotis (Myotis californicus), Mexican free -tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) , Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), and hoary bat (Aeorestes cinereus). Species that are likely to use ponds as a water source are the same as those that occupy adjacent communities and are discussed in the Coastal Prairie and Non -Native Grasslands Wildlife sections, above. Special -Status Wildlife Special -status wildlife are species that are listed under federal or state Endangered Species Acts, California Fish and Game Code, identified by resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management) as sensitive, are protected under CEQA, or identified by Midpen staff as species of concern. A table of special -status species identified by the CNDDB as occurring on or within 5 miles of Toto Ranch is included in Appendix D. Special -status wildlife that occur, or have the potential to occur, within the Project area include: Allen's hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), American badger (Taxidea taxus), California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), San Francisco dusky - footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), short -eared owl (Asioflammeus), and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). These species are discussed below. Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements Allen's hummingbird is considered a Bird of Conservation Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Allen's hummingbird breeds throughout coastal California and southwestern Oregon in coastal scrub, valley -foothill hardwood, and wooded riparian habitats. Breeding takes place from mid -February to early August, producing two eggs per brood and up to two broods IS/MND 87 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 per season (Johnsgard 1983). During winter, Allen's hummingbird migrates south along the coast to the foothills and mountain forests of Mexico. Allen's hummingbirds feed primarily on nectar from a variety of herbaceous and woody flowering plants, but they will also hunt small insects and spiders. Hummingbirds are essential pollinators for many specially adapted flowers and sometimes serve as prey for predatory birds, mammals, and snakes. According to Audubon's climate models, Allen's hummingbird is expected to lose 90 percent of its current breeding range by 2080. More detailed information on the status and biology of Allen's hummingbird is provided in document B292 of California's Wildlife. Vol. I -III (Zeiner et al. eds. 1988-1990). Occurrence in the Project Area Allen's hummingbird will be present throughout the scrub habitats at Toto Ranch, foraging on nectar from flowering plants and roosting in shrubs or riparian trees. American Badger (Taxidea taxus) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements The American badger has been listed as a California Species of Special Concern since 1986. The American badger is a medium-sized (12-24 pounds), highly specialized burrowing mustelid that preys on burrowing rodents, reptiles, invertebrates, birds, eggs, and carrion. It is an uncommon permanent resident throughout California, but is most abundant in dry, open stages of scrub, forest, and prairie habitats with friable soils suitable for digging extensive burrow systems (Grinnell et al. 1937, Messick and Hornocker 1981, Lindzey 1982). Mating takes place in the summer and early fall, resulting in a litter of one to four cubs between March and April (Long 1973, Peeters 1988). The main threats to the American badger include habitat fragmentation, roadkill, indiscriminate predator -control poisons, trapping, and secondary poisoning from rodenticides. More detailed information about the status and biology of the American badger is provided in document M160 of California's Wildlife. Vol. I -III (Zeiner et al. eds. 1988-1990). Occurrence in the Project Area American badger burrows have been identified at Toto Ranch, but there have been no confirmed/documented sightings of American Badgers to date. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements The burrowing owl is listed as a California Bird Species of Special Concern (breeding), Priority 2. Historically, this species' range included open grasslands throughout most of California and its islands. The burrowing owl prefers habitats with short grasses, scattered shrubs, and ground squirrel burrows for roosting and nesting (Green and Anthony 1989, Haug et al. 1993, Ronan 2002). Burrowing owls have adapted to some agricultural environments, I S/M N D 88 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 nesting along roadsides in open canals, ditches, and drains (DeSante et al. 2004, Rosenberg and Haley 2004). The burrowing owl preys on a variety of insects, small rodents, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and occasionally carrion (Thompson and Anderson 1988, Green et al. 1993, Plumpton and Lutz 1993, Gervais et al. 2000, York et al. 2002). Burrowing owls breed from March to August and produce an average clutch size of 14 eggs (Rosenberg and Haley 2004, Haug et al. 1993, Todd and Skilnick 2002). Threats to burrowing owls include habitat loss and degradation from rapid urbanization and farming practices that destroy nest burrows (Rosenberg and Haley 2004). More detailed information on the status and biology of the burrowing owl is provided in California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California (Shuford and Gardali, ed., 2008). Occurrence in the Project Area Burrowing owls have been noted in grasslands at Toto Ranch using American badger dens and in areas with moderately dense ground squirrel burrows. California Red -Legged Frog (Rana draytonii) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements California red -legged frog is listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act and is a California Species of Special Concern. Historically, the CRLF was common from Redding to Baja California, including the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges. Its current range is much smaller, and most remaining populations are found in central California along the coast, from Marin to Ventura Counties. California red -legged frogs breed in lowland and foothill streams, marshes, and wetlands, including livestock ponds (Jennings and Hayes 1994). They may also be found in upland habitats near breeding areas and along intermittent drainages connecting wetlands. Adults may take refuge during dry periods in rodent holes, soil cracks, or leaf litter in riparian habitats. Although CRLF typically remain near aquatic habitat, studies in coastal California suggest that they are capable of moving 2 miles or more in upland habitat or through ephemeral drainages (Bulger et al. 2003). More detailed information on the status and biology of CRLF is provided in the Recovery Plan for the California Red -Legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Occurrence in the Project Area Toto Ranch is located within critical habitat for the CRLF. Midpen biologists monitor a healthy population of CRLF that occur at Toto Ranch. CRLF have been observed in a number of the fourteen (14) ponds and wetlands in the Project area, and are assumed to use all of the ponds at times. One adult CRLF was found in a small drainage at Toto Ranch, and likely also utilize the creeks and streams for foraging and dispersal/movement, although the steep topography of the drainages may make travel along these corridors somewhat difficult. Riparian habitat adjacent to IS/MND 89 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 creeks and streams may provide leaf litter and other opportunities for refuge, cover, and predator avoidance. CRLF utilize upland areas that contain habitat features for refuge and aestivation (logs, rocks, and rodent burrows). Coho Salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements The Coho salmon is a medium-sized salmonid (55-70 cm) protected under both the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Moyle 2002). Historically, Coho salmon ranged from the Smith River near the Oregon border to the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz County, California. Coho are now present in only two-thirds of their historic range between Humboldt County and the Oregon border, and have been extirpated from all tributaries of the San Francisco Bay (CDFG 2004). Coho salmon inhabit low -gradient reaches of tributary streams and larger rivers such as those found in the Klamath River watershed. They need gravelly substrate to lay their eggs, and clear, cool, oxygenated water. Threats to Coho salmon include overexploitation of stocks, interactions with hatchery fish, loss and degradation of habitat caused by dams and other development, and siltation of watersheds (Brown et al. 1994, CDFG 2004). More detailed information on the status and biology of Coho salmon is provided online at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov /Conservation/Fishes/Coho-Salmon. Occurrence in the Project Area Coho salmon do not occur in Tunitas Creek. The closest coho-bearing stream is San Gregorio Creek, approximately 2.2 miles to the south. However, improvements to Tunitas Creek provide suitable habitat in the event that coho salmon are present but undetected, or if they expand their range into Tunitas Creek. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) is a California species of special concern. This species is an uncommon and local summer resident and breeder in foothills and lowlands west of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, from Mendocino County south to San Diego County. Grasshopper sparrows may also stay in coastal southern California through the winter, although due to their secretive behavior scientists are still researching their range and migration patterns (Grinnell and Miller 1944, McCaskie et al. 1979, Garrett and Dunn 1981). Grasshopper sparrows inhabit dry, dense grasslands, especially native grasslands with a variety of grasses and tall forbs and scattered shrubs for singing perches. They feed primarily on the ground and in low foliage, looking for insects, and grass and forb seeds (Bent 1968). Grasshopper sparrows build nests of grasses and other vegetation in a slight depression in I S/M N D 90 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 ground, often concealed at the base of overhanging grasses. They use scattered shrubs for singing perches. More detailed information on the status and biology of the grasshopper sparrow is provided in California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System (CDFW 2019). Occurrence in Project Area Grasshopper sparrows have been observed by Midpen and Point Blue biologists in grasslands throughout Toto Ranch. Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements Horned larks (Eremophila alpestris) are on the CDFW Watch List. They are common in a variety of open habitats, including grasslands along the coast, deserts at sea level, and alpine dwarf -shrub habitat above the tree line. They are much less common along the north coast of California, in mountain regions, and in coniferous or chaparral habitats (McCaskie et al. 1979). They can become gregarious after breeding season, forming large flocks that forage and roost together. Horned larks forage on the ground, searching for and eating insects, snails, and spiders during breeding season, adding grass and forb seeds to their diet when they are available in other seasons (Bent 1942). They seek cover amongst grasses, shrubs, forbs, rocks, litter, clods of soil, and other surface irregularities. They build their grass -lined nests in depressions on ground in the open. More detailed information on the status and biology of the horned lark is provided in California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System (CDFW 2019). Occurrence in Project Area Horned larks have been observed by Midpen and Point Blue biologists in grasslands throughout Toto Ranch. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements The northern harrier is currently considered a California Bird Species of Special Concern (breeding), Priority 3. The northern harrier is a large hawk that prefers open, treeless habitats that provide adequate cover for nesting, abundant prey, and scattered lookout perches for hunting and feeding. Such habitats include marshes, wet meadows, annual and perennial grasslands, abandoned or lightly grazed pastures, some croplands, sagebrush flats, and desert sinks. Northern harriers nest on the ground within patches of dense vegetation from March through August and prey on a variety of small- to medium-sized mammals, passerine birds, and reptiles (MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996). Historically, the breeding range of the northern harrier included wetlands and prairies from the Modoc Plateau south to San Diego at elevations ranging from sea level to 9,000 feet (Grinnell 1915; Shuford and Metropulos 1996). Breeding populations in the state have been in IS/MND 91 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 decline since the early 1940s due to loss of suitable habitat to agriculture, urban development, livestock grazing, fire suppression, and exotic species (Grinnell and Miller 1944; Moss et al. 1995). The primary threats to northern harriers are loss of nesting and foraging habitat and nest failure from human disturbance, predator -control poisons, agricultural operations and unnatural predation (MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996, Shweizer and Chesemore 1996). More detailed information on the status and biology of the northern harrier is provided in California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California (Shuford and Gardali, ed., 2008). Occurrence in the Project Area Northern harriers occur in the grasslands and sparse, low, open scrub habitats of Toto Ranch. Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements The Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) is on the CDFW Watch List. It is an uncommon permanent resident that ranges from southeastern deserts, through the Central Valley, and the inner Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada. Their range rarely extends into the northern coastal fog belt or the upper elevations of Sierra Nevada. Prairie falcons inhabit open grasslands, but are associated primarily with perennial grasslands, savannahs, rangeland, some agricultural fields, and desert scrub. They forage in open areas, catching prey in the air and on the ground. They eat mostly small mammals, some small birds, and reptiles. Prairie falcons nest in open terrain with canyons, cliffs, and rock outcrops, most often nest in a scrape on a sheltered ledge of a cliff, but sometimes nests on old raven or eagle stick nest. Nest sites overlook large, open areas. More detailed information on the status and biology of the prairie falcon is provided in California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System (CDFW 2019). Occurrence in Project Area Prairie falcons have been observed foraging in open areas at Toto Ranch. San Francisco Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements The San Francisco common yellowthroat is considered a Bird Species of Special Concern (year- round), Priority 3. The San Francisco common yellowthroat is a subspecies of the common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) and is endemic to the greater San Francisco Bay region. It breeds from mid -March to late July from Tomales Bay, Marin County, east to Carquinez Straight, and south to San Jose, Santa Clara County (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Breeding habitat includes wetlands and marshes fringed by riparian thickets, as well as swales and seeps where I S/M N D 92 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 groundwater is close to the surface (Foster 1977, Hobson et al. 1986). Two broods per season are raised in a well -concealed, open -cup nest built in dense vegetation near the ground. The diet of the San Francisco common yellowthroat consists mostly of insects and spiders (Beal 1907). Threats to this species include degradation of remaining wetland habitat and reduced reproductive success from predation and cowbird nest parasitism (Guzy and Ritchison 1999, Spautz 1999). More detailed information on the status and biology of the San Francisco common yellowthroat is provided in California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California (Shuford and Gardali, ed., 2008). Occurrence in the Project Area The common yellowthroat is known to occur at Toto Ranch in and around ponds and riparian areas, and adjacent scrub habitats. San Francisco Dusky -Footed Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements The San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat is a California Species of Special Concern. It is a subspecies of the more widespread dusky -footed woodrat (N. fuscipes), a medium-sized (200- 400 grams), grey -brown rodent with a long tail (6-8 inches) and large ears. This subspecies is found throughout the San Francisco Bay area in scrub, grassland, and woodland communities (Burt and Gossenheider 1980, Hall 1981). It is a generalist herbivore, feeding on a wide variety of nuts, fruits, woody plants, grasses, fungi, and forbs (Linsdale and Tevis 1951). Preferable habitat characteristics include the presence of oaks and other thick -leaved trees and shrubs (Kelly 1990, Williams et al. 1992). For shelter, the San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat builds a nest of sticks that can measure up to 2.4 m (8 ft) in height and 2.4 m (8 ft) in diameter beneath or within a tree or shrub (English 1923). Within the larger nest structure, smaller nests of leaves, grass and feathers are built. Nests can remain standing for twenty years or more and host multiple generations (Linsdale and Tevis 1951). The San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat breeds from December to September, producing an average litter size of two to three young and up to five litters per year (Linsdale and Tevis 1951, Verner and Boss 1980). Woodrats serve as prey for snakes, raptors, coyotes and bobcats, and the stick structures that it builds provide refuge for small mammals, amphibians and reptiles. More detailed information on the status and biology of the San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat is provided in Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California (Williams 1986). IS/MND 93 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Occurrence in the Project Area San Francisco dusky -footed woodrats occur at Toto Ranch in scrub habitats, especially in riparian corridors. Their nests are conspicuous, found within forested, riparian, and scrub habitats. San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements The San Francisco garter snake is a colorful subspecies of the common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) that is listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The San Francisco garter snake historically ranged in wetland areas along the San Francisco Peninsula from the San Francisco County line south down the coast to Ano Nuevo Point, San Mateo County, and Waddell Creek, Santa Cruz County, and east along the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains. It prefers wetland habitats or densely vegetated ponds with nearby grassy uplands where it can hunt for amphibians (such as CRLF) and find cover in small mammal burrows (USFWS 1985). During winter along the coast, San Francisco garter snakes may migrate up to several hundred yards away from their wetland hunting grounds to aestivate in upland burrows. In the summer when ponds evaporate, these snakes may seek out small mammal burrows in order to estivate, or enter a dormant state, in an effort to conserve energy until the rainy season returns. Threats to the San Francisco garter snake population include loss of habitat from agricultural and urban development, the decline of the California red -legged frog (an essential prey species), the introduction of invasive species such as the American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and illegal collection by reptile enthusiasts (USFWS 2007). Additional information on the status and biology of this species is provided in Species Profile for San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007) and in Demography of the San Francisco Garter Snake in Coastal San Mateo County, California (B. J. Halstead et al. 2011). Occurrence in the Project Area A population described by Barry during research from 1971-1983 is mapped in the CNDDB along Tunitas Creek from Highway 1 east to Dry Creek at the northern boundary of the property (California Natural Diversity Database 2019). San Francisco garter snakes have not been detected at Toto Ranch by Midpen biologists, even with extensive survey efforts. Short -Eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements Short -eared owls (Asio flammeus) are a California Species of Special Concern. They are a widespread winter migrant, found primarily in the Central Valley, in the western Sierra Nevada IS/MND 94 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 foothills, and along the coastline, but are occasionally seen as a winter migrant in southern California, including the Channel Islands (Garrett and Dunn 1981). Short -eared owls are usually found in open areas, including both annual and perennial grasslands, prairies, dunes, meadows, irrigated lands, and saline and fresh emergent wetlands. They often use fence posts and small mounds as perches, and require dense vegetation, tall grasses, brush, ditches, and wetlands for resting and roosting cover (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Their numbers have declined over most of their range in recent decades because of destruction and fragmentation of grassland and wetland habitats, and grazing (Remsen 1978) and increased levels of predation (Holt and Leasure 1993). Short -eared owls hunt from the air, searching in low, gliding passes above the ground. They feed primarily on voles and other small mammals (Bent 1938, Earhart and Johnson 1970), but rely on eating birds in coastal wintering areas, and during nesting season. They also eat reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods. Short -eared owls nest on dry ground in a depression concealed in vegetation, and lined with grasses, forbs, sticks, and feathers; occasionally nests in a burrow. One recorded nest is on bare soil with no nest material (Holt 1992), elevated sites for perches, and dense vegetation for roosting and nesting. More detailed information on the status and biology of the short -eared owl is provided in California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System (CDFW 2019). Occurrence in Project Area Short -eared owls have been observed by Midpen biologists at Toto Ranch in open grassland habitats. Steel head Trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Requirements Steelhead trout that spawn along the central California coast are considered federally threatened (71 FR 834; NMFS 2016a; Williams et al. 2016). This population ranges from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, including the drainages of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays eastward to Chipps Island at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (71 FR 834). Steelhead are anadromous salmonid fish, migrating from the ocean to spawn in freshwater streams where their young are reared before migrating to the ocean to mature. Unlike other salmonids, steelhead are iteroparous in that not all adults die after spawning and some may spawn more than once in their lifetime. Steelhead spawn mostly between December and March (Moyle 2002; Quinn 2005). Freshwater habitat requirements include cool (12-18°C), well - oxygenated water, gravelly substrate for spawning and rearing offspring, riparian vegetation to support invertebrate prey, and fallen woody debris for habitat structure. Major threats to steelhead populations include loss of genetic diversity, siltation of watersheds, and habitat fragmentation caused by urbanization and water resource development. More detailed IS/MND 95 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 information on the status and biology of steelhead trout is provided in the Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan (National Marine Fisheries Service 2016) and online at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Fishes/Coastal- Rainbow-Trout-Steelhead. Occurrence in the Project Area Steelhead trout are known to occur in Tunitas Creek, which flows along the north boundary of Toto Ranch. Steelhead were first reported in Tunitas Creek as early as 1939 (Becker and Reining 2008). A NMFS study found steelhead in Tunitas Creek at Tunitas Creek headwaters in 1995, and habitat typing of the entire watershed was conducted by CDFW in 2006 (Becker and Reining 2008). The upstream limit of anadromy appears to be a boulder/bedrock falls at about stream mile 6.2 (Becker and Reining 2008). The population of steelhead in Tunitas Creek is relatively small and low in abundance, with the greatest density of juveniles occurring in the upper creek reaches (Becker and Reining 2008). Threats to the steelhead population are from excessive sedimentation, low creek flows, and water quality issues. Regulatory Setting Following is a list of the applicable regulatory protections for biological resources present on Toto Ranch. Refer to Appendix E for a description of these regulations. • Federal Regulations - Federal Endangered Species Act o Section 7, Consultation and Authorization of Take - Clean Water Act - Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act - Migratory Bird Treaty Act Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act • State Regulations California Endangered Species Act California Fish and Game Code o Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1600 et seq.) California Native Plant Protection Act Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act Coastal Act California Environmental Quality Act • Local Laws and Ordinances - San Mateo County General Plan - Heritage Tree Ordinance for San Mateo County I S/M N D 96 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Midpen has the following valid permits that provide guidance and requirements for compliance with the Clean Water Act, federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, and California Fish and Game Code for routine maintenance activities. • USFWS 10(a)1(A) permit and Intra-Service Biological Opinion for the San Francisco Garter Snake and California Red -Legged Frog Habitat Enhancement Projects at their Open Space Preserves in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, California, as well as a Recovery Permit for California red -legged frog and San Francisco garter snake • USFWS Biological Opinion for SFGS and CRLF • USFWS Recovery Permit for incidental take of SFGS and CRLF in conjunction with habitat management activities to enhance their survival • CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement for System Wide Routine Maintenance Agreement for Various Creeks in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties • RWQCB 401 Certification for Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certifications for Routine Maintenance Activities Discussion a. Substantial Effect through Habitat Modifications on any 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. As described in Section 1.5, Proposed Project Components, the proposed Project includes implementation of the Toto Ranch RMP, which includes grazing recommendations, fence repairs and installation, road repairs and maintenance, water infrastructure improvements; and pond management activities. These activities may impact the special -status species that occur, or may occur, on the property, including: Allen's hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), American badger (Taxidea taxus), California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), San Francisco dusky - footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), and short -eared owl (Asioflammeus). Additionally, as described in Sections 1.5.1(E), Monitoring and Adaptive Management, and 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, the proposed Project includes several practices and measures to avoid and minimize potential environmental impacts, based on existing permits and guidance documents. The following is discussion identifies potential Project impacts on special -status species by activity in consideration of the proposed monitoring, adaptive management, and avoidance and minimization measures. IS/MND 97 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Effects of Grazing As described in Section 1.5.1, grazing by cattle is proposed by the RMP as the main method of vegetation management at Toto Ranch. Grazing regimes and outcomes will vary based on stocking rates, rotation times and grazing intensity, weather, and water availability. Grazing, when used effectively, can increase habitat quality of rangelands. However, if stocking rates are too high for the soil conditions, vegetation, and moisture regime, the outcome may result in negative habitat changes such as erosion, decreased water quality, and reduction in native species and biodiversity. Potential impacts to the SFGS and/or CRLF from grazing include the alteration of habitat from inappropriate grazing regimes, where an excess of vegetation is removed. Vegetation is used by these species as cover for avoiding predators while moving across the terrestrial habitat. Grazing cattle can also alter the quality of the ponds which are used by SFGS and CRLF for reproduction and foraging. Grazing practices, and in particular unrestricted grazing, can seriously degrade the aquatic and surrounding upland habitat if cattle are allowed constant access to the entire area of any single pool or combination of pools. Cattle may trample the muddy areas of the habitat and change the shoreline and bottom structure of the pond. Furthermore, cattle may urinate and defecate in the ponds, changing the water chemistry and degrading the suitability of the aquatic habitat. Although Choris' popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus) benefits from low -intensity disturbance including grazing, intensive grazing can adversely impact this species and the wet soils it inhabits. Intensive grazing can result in extensive loss of above -ground biomass like leaves, flowers, and seeds, as well as the creation of muddy, trampled areas where cow hooves can pit and mix the wet soils that Choris' popcorn flower inhabit. These impacts can be especially detrimental if grazing occurs when plants are flowering and seeding. Although grazing has the potential to adversely impact SFGS, CRLF, Choris' popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus) and other grassland species, including special - status species like burrowing owl and northern harrier, the appropriate grazing regime can also help maintain grassland habitat and control invasive plants that might otherwise adversely modify this habitat. Grazing with proper timing and intensity provides mild to moderate disturbance, controls vegetation height and density, and provides a mosaic of grass, forb, and small amounts of bare ground that is optimal for many native plant and animal species. Grazing also prevents natural succession to scrub habitat that does not have all of the habitat characteristics necessary for the grassland species. In addition, the maintenance of vegetation cover in grasslands improves or maintains water quality in adjacent stream habitats that lead into Tunitas Creek. Improved water quality benefits Coho salmon and steelhead, which are federally listed species known to inhabit the creek. I S/M N D 98 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 The adverse effects from grazing would be reduced with implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures included in the proposed Project, as described in Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Best Management Practices. In combination, these measures prescribe strict grazing regimes, including the control and exclusion of cattle from sensitive areas using fencing. The proposed Project also outlines a comprehensive monitoring and adaptive management plan with regular reporting to identify and rectify any negative outcomes from grazing, and to create a record of management options that are beneficial at Toto Ranch, as described in Section 1.5.1(E), Monitoring and Adaptive Management, and Appendix A (RMP). With the implementation of the proposed Avoidance and Minimization Measures and the Monitoring and Adaptive Management measures, the impacts from grazing on special -status species would be less than significant. No additional mitigation would be required. Effects of Pond Management As described in Section 1.5.2, proposed pond management activities include installing inlets/outlets, reconstructing and maintaining berms, recontouring the shape and depth, connecting ponds to water infrastructure (e.g., troughs, pumps, water lines), installing cattle exclusion fencing, controlling invasive species, and decommissioning smaller ponds to reestablish natural flows of creeks and drainages. These activities would be conducted as needed, over the course of several years. SFGS and CRLF are the only listed species completely dependent on the presence and quality of the ponds at Toto Ranch for survival. Terrestrial species are dependent on ponds as a water source but could alternatively use watering troughs. Currently, many of the ponds are in danger of permanently drying up as a result of deteriorating berms and spillways, as well as from the choking effect of excessive thick aquatic vegetation. The proposed pond management activities are meant to restore the various ponds to improve water quality and longevity, which would improve aquatic habitat for CRLF and SFGS. The sizes of existing CRLF populations are expected to stabilize and increase as a result of improvements to essential pond habitat. Pond improvements should also increase the overall amphibian prey base for the SFGS, by increasing optimum breeding habitat and providing less competition among amphibians for open water habitat and food resources. Although SFGS have not been detected at Toto Ranch to date, these enhancements are designed to attract and support colonization by SFGS. The discussion below focuses on potential impacts to sensitive and special -status species. For potential impacts associated with the loss of wetlands or waters, refer to discussion "c" below. I S/M N D 99 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Possible Take of Special -Status Wildlife Species (CRLF and SFGS) Potential impacts from pond management activities include the inadvertent harming or killing of SFGS and/or CRLF from ground disturbing activities by the use of vehicles and equipment like weed whackers, tractors, bulldozers, or excavators. Additionally, water may need to be fully or partially drained from ponds for repairs, temporarily reducing the amount and quality of aquatic habitat. Emergent and riparian habitat may be crushed or removed, and any SFGS or CRLF that are in the vegetation may be harmed. Upland habitat adjacent to ponds may be impacted, including logs and burrows where SFGS and CRLF hide and/or aestivate. Harm or killing of SFGS or CRLF would be considered "take" under FESA and CESA. The adverse effects on special -status species from ground disturbance during pond management activities would be reduced with implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures included in the proposed Project, as described in Sections 1.5.3 and 2.5. These measures are based on the permit requirements from USFWS and CFWS and include preconstruction surveys, on -site biological monitors, seasonal restrictions, and other BMPs. With implementation of the proposed Avoidance and Minimization Measures, the potential for take of special -status species from ground disturbing pond management activities would be less than significant. No additional mitigation would be required. Loss of Aquatic Habitat for CRLF and SFGS Potential impacts from pond management activities include the loss of aquatic habitat for SFGS and CRLF from decommissioning of small ponds. Although designed to result in benefits to creeks and streams and eliminate ponds of marginal habitat quality, the decommissioning of small ponds and reestablishment of natural flows of creeks could result in the loss of pond habitat at Toto Ranch. Therefore, the loss of habitat for listed species would be a potentially significant impact. This impact would be reduced to a less than significant level if the loss of aquatic habitat is accompanied by the enlargement and/or enhancement of a different existing pond and consultation is undertaken for approval of these actions by USFWS, CDFW and RWQCB. Refer discussion "c" below for impacts to wetlands. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Pond Enlargement or Creation, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation BIO-1: Pond Enlargement or Creation when Ponds are Decommissioned. When existing ponds are decommissioned as part of pond management activities, a new pond shall be created or an existing pond shall be enlarged to achieve a no net loss of wetland or waters of the U.S. or state within Toto Ranch. Plans to enlarge or create ponds will be developed in consultation with USFWS, CDFW, and RWQCB. Pond creation activities such as grading with heavy equipment, digging with hand tools, diverting water, and IS/MND 100 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 planting native plants will likely require permits and will be conducted in compliance with any additional permit requirements. Larger mitigation ratios (2:1 replacement is a common mitigation ratio) would be required to mitigate for losses of occupied CRLF habitat. Effects of RMP Implementation on Creeks, Streams, and Riparian Habitats Historically, ranchers have excluded cattle from creeks, streams, and riparian habitats (riparian areas) at Toto Ranch; and, similarly, implementing the RMP would continue to exclude cattle and grazing from riparian areas by using fencing and natural barriers. Some of the headwater areas near the top of the ridge, where there is typically no defined bed and bank, have been dammed to create stock ponds, and cattle have been grazing in these areas for many years. Water infrastructure improvements proposed as part of the RMP (e.g., additional troughs) would provide additional water sources for cattle, which would decrease the use of ponds throughout Toto Ranch and reduce potential impacts on pond and riparian areas as water sources. This would increase the quality of the pond/aquatic habitats in headwater and riparian areas. Because implementation of the RMP would increase the habitat quality in riparian areas, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. Effects of Integrated Pest Management on Special -Status Plant and Wildlife Species. As described in Section 1.5.1, the RMP includes rangeland management practices conducted in accordance with several existing permits and guidance documents, including Midpen's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program, which was reviewed by USFWS and CDFW during development of Midpen's Biological Opinion (BO) for CRLF and SFGS. The IPM includes chemical, manual, mechanical, fire, and grazing treatments for managing plant and animal pest species on Midpen properties, including Toto Ranch, that could adversely affect special -status wildlife species, including CRLF and SFGS. A description of these treatments is presented below, followed by a discussion of potential impacts, except for grazing which is addressed under Effects of Grazing above. Types of IPM Treatments Chemical Treatment Chemical treatments described in Midpen's IPM program for Rangelands and Agricultural Properties include the use of Aminopyralid (Milestone), Clopyralid (Transline), and Glyphosate (Round Up Custom and Promax) for spot control of rangeland and agricultural weeds and/or brush control (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). Additional herbicides for treating invasive plants on Midpen properties included in the USFWS BO for CRLF and SFGS are: Imazapyr (Polaris), Imazapyr (Stalker), and Clethodim (Envoy Plus), and Agi-Fos (the fungicide used to prevent sudden oak death) (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). IS/MND 101 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Use of these seven chemicals as described in Midpen's IPM program are in compliance with the October 20, 2006 federal Stipulated Injunction, which requires the establishment of buffers around certain habitats of the California red -legged frog and prohibits use of certain pesticides within those habitats and buffer zones, and in compliance with the BO and CDFW LSAA guidelines for use of chemicals in and near CRLF and SFGS habitats. The avoidance and minimization and mitigation measures included therein protect the quality of upland and aquatic (breeding and nonbreeding) habitat for both species, as well as prevent direct impacts to animals (take), and are included in Table 2, and further defined in Section 2.5. Manual (Hand Tools) and Mechanical Vegetation Removal Permanent aquatic habitat may be temporarily drained for sediment and vegetation removal rendering the pond uninhabitable and not useful as aquatic habitat for CRLF. This temporary removal of aquatic habitat would be conducted only during the time of year that frogs had reached a level of maturity where they could maintain a terrestrial existence. The ponds would be refilled by winter rainfall and runoff before the next breeding season. Removal of water may cause the temporary elimination of prey species and may reduce the local community of invertebrates that support the food web of the pond. During the sediment and vegetation removal it is possible for CRLF to be injured or killed by either hand tools or larger machinery as described in previous sections. Other enhancement activities may involve temporary degradation of the aquatic habitat, such as entry by workers to manually remove vegetation or sediment, or to plant new vegetation. This may also include temporary installation of silt fences and exclusion fencing, which would prevent access or egress by any of the amphibious pond species. Prescribed Burns Prescribed burns may temporarily remove shoreline and upland vegetation that is being used by pond species such as CRLF and SFGS as cover from predation. If vegetation removal exposes bare soils, erosion control methods would be implemented to prevent runoff from depositing into aquatic habitat and temporarily degrading the quality of the water. Adverse Effects on Special -Status Species (CRLF and SFGS) The implementation of these IPM treatments could result in direct harm or mortality of special - status plant, amphibian, bird, fish, or mammal species. Indirect impacts to species include loss, alteration, and/or contamination of food/prey, or impacts to habitats, including CRLF federally designated critical habitat. Upland areas within 200 feet of aquatic habitat would be affected by vegetation management activities such as prescribed burns, and manual, mechanical, and chemical vegetation removal. Vegetation management activities may temporarily degrade the upland areas by removing IS/MND 102 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 grasses and forbs used as cover from predators and as habitat for invertebrates that serve as prey items for CRLF. The habitat would be degraded by the removal of vegetation cover that may be used as predator avoidance, by the accidental removal or partial destruction of burrows that may serve as refugia from ground disturbing activities (use of hand tools and/or mechanized equipment), and by the temporary presence of vehicles and workers that would be in the habitat presenting a threat to the local animal species. The temporary loss of habitat during restoration or maintenance activities would not be expected to appreciably diminish the value for CRLF or prevent critical habitat from sustaining its role in the conservation and recovery of the species. The adverse effects from IPM treatments would be reduced with implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures to protect and enhance aquatic habitat, which are included in the proposed Project. Refer to Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, Section 2.5, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Identified Mitigation Measures and Appendix B in this document for a summary. To avoid and reduce the impacts of manual, mechanical, and chemical treatments on SFGS and CRLF within Toto Ranch, all invasive plant and animal work would be done in accordance with existing permit requirements, mitigation measures, and BMPs identified in the IPM Program and IPM EIR, USFWS Biological Opinion, CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, and the federal injunction to protect CRLF from impacts from specific chemical pesticides (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). These measures include: prohibition of the use of burrow fumigants, insecticides or rodenticides in habitats where SFGS or CRLF occur or may occur; the limited use of USFWS- and CDFW-approved herbicides and fungicides used in accordance with the guidelines on the label and if they comply with the restrictions listed in the critical habitat designation; use of a USFWS and CDFW approved biological monitor; and the adherence to all permit requirements. Toto Ranch is located in CRLF critical habitat. If USFWS determines that future IPM implementation would result in the permanent loss of federally designated, critical habitat, or occupied habitat outside of federally designated critical habitat, and that it cannot be avoided, compensation would be provided through protection and enhancement of habitat within Midpen open space, the purchase of off -site mitigation credits, and/or contribution to regional conservation and recovery efforts for the species as determined in consultation with the USFWS, NMFS, and CDFW (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). With implementation of the conservation and mitigation measures required by the existing permits listed above (and included in the proposed Project as avoidance and minimization measures in Section 1.5) the manual, mechanical, and chemical removal of invasive and non- native plants and animals would ultimately protect valuable habitat assets (such as maintenance of ponds and grasslands), and eliminate non -natural predation of and competition with the SFGS IS/MND 103 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 and CRLF. Both upland and aquatic habitat would be enhanced for use by CRLF by the proposed activities, contributing to the high conservation value of Toto Ranch as a whole. This would reduce the harm to sensitive species, including CRLF and CRLF critical habitat. Therefore, with implementation of the proposed Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Section 1.5.3), the impact would be less than significant. No additional mitigation would be required. Effects of Ranch Road Maintenance The existing permits include requirements for general maintenance of roads and trails. At Toto Ranch, there are no public trails, only unpaved roads used to access the different pastures. So in this case, effects discussed in this section apply only to roads, either for general maintenance, or as part of specific road repair Projects identified in the RMP. Refer to Effects of RMP Infrastructure Improvements (Fencing, Water Infrastructure, Road Improvements). At Toto Ranch, roads are areas of compacted soil or fill (base rock) used to provide ease of travel over terrain for humans by vehicle, walking, horse, or bike. Toto Ranch would not be open to the public, so all roads would be used only as necessary for tenants or Midpen personnel for access to the livestock, property, and infrastructure. Additional, roads may provide travel corridors or access to larger animals but may pose a barrier to small animals. Specifically, roads do not provide high quality habitat for either SFGS or CRLF. In fact, roads (typically paved) have been shown in several studies to be a threat to snakes (Rosen and Lowe 1994; Ashley and Robinson 1996; Rudolph et al 1998; Enge and Wood 2002; Row et al. 2007). Snakes are subject to vehicle strikes while crossing roads or, as is very common, while using the roads to regulate their body temperature. CRLF are also known to move around in upland, terrestrial habitat and may be vulnerable to vehicle strikes while on roads. Although it is possible for both SFGS and CRLF to be injured or killed while on roads, the infrequent use of these features reduces the potential for harm to these species. In addition, Midpen will provide environmental sensitivity training for the tenant, staff, consultants, and contractors regarding avoidance and minimization measures to protect these species. Road maintenance may temporarily degrade upland habitat since workers and vehicles would be present in the habitat presenting a threat to the local animal species as described above. Newly maintained or constructed roads and trails may degrade a portion of the upland habitat by replacing naturally vegetated areas with swaths of open, cleared habitat that provide terrestrial animals with no possible cover from aerial predators. The actions required for maintenance of roads may cause direct injury or mortality to any SFGS and/or CRLF within the area where the activity is being performed. In some cases, heavy equipment is required to conduct the maintenance. Heavy equipment, such as tractors and excavators can incidentally destroy burrows used by SFGW or CRLF, or may incidentally directly injure or kill these species. The avoidance and minimization measures identified in the RMP, permits, and guidance documents and included as part of this proposed Project are I S/M N D 104 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 designed to avoid these impacts, reducing the chances for harm to these species. Environmental sensitivity training and biological monitors are especially helpful in preventing vehicle strikes. Refer to Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, Section 2.5, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Identified Mitigation Measures, and Appendix B. Well maintained roads offer better visibility for vehicle drivers to see and avoid small animals like SFGS and CRLF. In addition, the roads are also essential to maintain fire breaks and fuels reduction, and to access remote areas for fighting unplanned fires and conducting restoration and enhancement of habitat and monitoring activities. Road alignment can be designed or realigned to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats, special -status species, and heritage and significant trees. Several roads cross through or near locations of Choris' popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus); these areas are often associated with springs or other wetland features. Grading or other disturbance to these areas could directly remove Choris' popcorn flower plants, change and/or disrupt the seed bank, or alter the habitat such that the wetland features of the habitat are detrimental to the survival of the population. Avoidance and minimization measures to protect the Choris' popcorn flower are incorporated into the RMP and Midpen's other governing documents, and include a grazing regime that is compatible with and provides benefits to popcorn flower habitat (Tables lA and 2). In addition, the level of use of these roads is low, and management plans are to maintain vegetation on the roads, especially in these locations. The potential impacts of road maintenance would be reduced with implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures included in the proposed Project, as described in Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, Section 2.5, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures, and Appendix B. Additionally, the proposed Project also outlines a comprehensive monitoring and adaptive management plan with regular reporting to identify and rectify any negative outcomes from RMP implementation, including road and trail maintenance, as described in Section 1.5.1(E), Monitoring and Adaptive Management, and Appendix A (RMP). If any road alignment may affect such resources, Midpen will consult with the appropriate agencies (e.g., CDFW, USFWS, NMFS) to ensure that impacts are avoided or adequate mitigation is implemented. Therefore, the impact of road maintenance would be less than significant. IS/MND 105 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Effects of RMP Infrastructure Improvements (Fencing, Water Infrastructure, Road Improvements) The proposed Project includes several infrastructure improvement projects at Toto Ranch identified in the RMP, including: • construction of additional fencing/cross-fencing to increase the number of pastures for grazing rotation options; • improvements to the water infrastructure to supply all of the newly split pastures and to provide water for a longer period into the dry months; and • Road improvements to reduce erosion from runoff, including water bars and other dewatering options. The locations and descriptions of these Projects are outlined in the RMP (Appendix A). The proposed fence repairs and installation would include digging holes for fence posts or driving of T -posts. Construction activities could result in harm to ground squirrel burrows and CRLF or SFGS that are resting, hiding, or aestivating in them. This risk is higher near ponds and other aquatic features. The use of wildlife -friendly fencing will be used to prevent injury to common wildlife like coyotes and deer as they move throughout Toto Ranch. The proposed road improvements are in or near known locations of Choris' popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus) and CRLF, and near riparian areas. The construction of these improvements could adversely affect sensitive species and or/natural communities when vehicles, people, and heavy equipment are used to access the site and clear vegetation and grade soils. This is especially true where burrows are present that may support dispersing, hiding, or aestivating CRLF or SFGS, or where work is planned near Choris' popcorn flower habitat. The grading and placement of fence posts would disturb soils, and potentially change the use of areas near fencing by either concentrating use and creating a path if cows or other animals walk along the fence line, or by encouraging the growth of weeds if cows avoid grazing along the fence line. The proposed water infrastructure improvements could disturb existing water sources (ponds, water troughs, springs), which could harm any CRLF that are present. Water troughs can trap frogs, snakes, or other wildlife if they are unable to scale the sides of these features, so wildlife escape ramps would be installed. Where construction/maintenance would occur near creeks, streams, or ponds, grading may loosen soil that can then run into these features, affecting water quality. The proposed avoidance and minimization measures, as required by permits and guidance documents, would be implemented to avoid or reduce impacts to special -status species and their habitats. These measures are designed to protect species from harm from construction activities, protect water quality, reduce erosion and bare soil, and guide revegetation and restoration activities. Examples of these measures include the placement of fencing and road improvements IS/MND 106 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 away from Choris' popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus) habitat, inclusion of wildlife escape ramps in water troughs, use of wildlife -friendly fencing, preconstruction surveys for special -status species, exclusionary fencing to prevent special -status wildlife from entering construction zones, and measures to protect small mammal burrows from harm. Refer to Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, Section 2.5, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures, and Appendix B for a summary of these actions. However, removal of wetlands or small ponds, permanent loss of jurisdictional wetlands and waters could result in the disturbance or loss of habitat for special -status species (CRLF and SFGS). Refer discussion "c" below for impacts to wetlands. The loss of these jurisdictional habitats would require compensation beyond that included in the proposed avoidance and mitigation measures. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Revegetation and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitat for CRLF and SFGS, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Revegetation and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitat for CRLF and SFGS. Revegetation and/or enhancement shall be undertaken where any sensitive habitat or special -status species habitat will be disturbed or destroyed by construction activities (Midpen 2002a). Revegetation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrently with improvement Project or pond management actions (Midpen 2002a). The design of an appropriate revegetation program shall fully compensate for the lost habitat, with no net loss of habitat functions and values. Riparian and wetland habitat impacts will typically be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio for high quality habitat areas and at lower ratios where lower habitat quality justifies a lower ratio (Midpen 2002a). A lower ratio may also be justified if habitat mitigation is implemented and verified as successful prior to the occurrence of impacts. Mitigation shall be based on in -kind replacement of impacted habitat with habitat of equal or better biotic value (Midpen 2002a). The revegetation program shall be designed by a qualified biologist or ecologist and submitted to the appropriate regulatory or trustee agency for approval (Midpen 2002a). At a minimum, the revegetation program shall include a description of Project impacts, mitigation calculations, the mitigation site, revegetation techniques, maintenance measures, a long-term monitoring program, and contingency measures (Midpen 2002a). Native plant materials suited to the site will be utilized in all mitigation work (Midpen 2002a). b. Adverse effect on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, Regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Toto Ranch does not contain any sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. Riparian habitat is present along the two seasonal/intermittent/ephemeral drainages that flow to Dry Creek IS/MND 107 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 and Tunitas Creek at the north edge of the property. Riparian vegetation in these steep drainages is dense and provides high-level ecosystem structure and function, including bank stabilization, wildlife cover, erosion control, and water temperature control. There are fourteen (14) ponds and wetlands at Toto Ranch, and since they are used as water sources for cattle (which often trample vegetation), they do not support riparian habitat. Per the RMP and past land stewardship practices prior to adoption of the RMP, cattle are not permitted to graze in steep riparian habitats or streams and are kept out of these areas with fencing or natural barriers. Thus, the quality of riparian habitats in most areas of Toto Ranch is high and will remain so as long as the guidance of the RMP is followed. Proposed Projects such as fencing, road repairs, and water infrastructure improvements are generally not proposed in riparian areas. There is only one road repair/culvert replacement Project at an intermittent creek that supports riparian habitat. Avoidance and minimization measures and management actions associated with the protection of riparian habitats are included in permits and other guidance documents. These have been included as part of the proposed Project, as described in Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, Section 2.5, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures, and Appendix B of this document. These measures are prescribed by the resource agencies and are designed to protect water quality, soils, and vegetation found in riparian habitats during general maintenance activities like culvert replacement and road repair. Because riparian habitats are excluded from grazing and other land management activities in the RMP, and because avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented and incorporated into maintenance actions where riparian habitat occurs, the impact would be less than significant. c. Adverse Effect on State or Federally Protected Wetlands (including Marsh, Vernal Pools, Coastal Habitats) through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological Interruption or Other Means. As described under Existing Conditions, there are currently fourteen (14) ponds and wetlands at Toto Ranch, and many of them are in danger of permanently drying up as a result of deteriorating berms and spillways, as well as from the choking effect of excessive thick aquatic vegetation. As described in Section 1.5.1, Toto Ranch RMP Implementation, the RMP would be implemented in accordance with several existing permits, including permits from RWQCB which require "no net loss" of waters or wetlands of the U.S. or state on Midpen properties. Thus, the RMP includes maintenance and enhancement activities that are meant to restore and maintain the presence and quality of the various ponds and wetlands to provide a stable water source for cattle and wildlife, as well as high -quality aquatic habitat for CRLF and SFGS, and maintain and enhance habitat for Choris' popcorn flower. This is a required per the existing IS/MND 108 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 permits is required per the RMP (Appendix A) provides guidance for implementing grazing regimes for vegetation management that are based on past, current, and predicted future conditions, with the goal of improving habitat conditions throughout Toto Ranch, including ponds and wetlands. The management actions in the RMP, along with permit requirements and policies from other guidance documents, provides avoidance and minimization measures to protect waters and wetlands of the U.S. and state including the avoidance of impacts, restoration of impacted areas, implementing long-term monitoring, restoring habitat, and ensuring additional protective measures are enacted when necessary. This includes tailoring the seasonal grazing to be compatible with and provide habitat benefits to Choris' popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus). Refer to Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, Section 2.5, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures, and Appendix B. However, some land management activities prescribed in required permits and other guiding documents like the IPM Guidance and Resource Management Guidelines, could impact wetlands and other waters, via the discharge of dredge or fill during manual and mechanical activities, and the decommissioning of smaller ponds and reestablishing natural flows of creeks. This could result in changes to the biological integrity of wetland and other waters, and/or result in a change to wetland type, function, and/or overall acreage. As stated, the existing permits from RWQCB require "no net loss" of waters or wetlands of the U.S. or state on Midpen properties. Most routine maintenance activities in ponds and wetlands will be conducted in a manner that results in no net loss of wetlands. However, the implementation of some types of manual and mechanical treatments within waters, including the change in habitat type from stock pond to ephemeral wetland to control bull frogs and non-native fishes, may impact wetlands or waters of the U.S. substantially enough that the resource agencies consider the impacts as causing "loss" of these resources. Additionally, pond management actions may include the decommissioning of small ponds and reestablishment of natural flows of creeks as an action that may be taken to remove marginally functioning ponds and restore creeks and riparian habitat. Although designed to result in benefits to the watershed, removing a small pond of marginal quality would still result in the loss of jurisdictional pond habitat at Toto Ranch. The loss or degradation of jurisdictional waters or wetlands would be considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and/or Wetlands, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and/or Wetlands. Midpen will prepare a wetland delineation and will determine the exact IS/MND 109 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 acreage of waters of the U.S. and waters of the state that would be affected as a result of Project implementation, and then estimate the quantity of dredge or fill material that may be discharged incidental to these activities. Midpen will consult with permitting with the USACE and RWQCB, including application for coverage under the Nationwide Permit or other programs as appropriate (Midpen 2014a; RWQCB 2010; USFWS 2016b). If activities will result in permanent impacts to waters, Midpen will replace or restore on a "no net loss" basis (minimum 1:1 ratio) (in accordance with USACE and/or RWQCB) the acreage and function of all wetlands and other waters that would be removed, lost, or degraded as a result of Project implementation. Wetland habitat will be replaced at an acreage and location agreeable to USACE and the RWQCB and as determined during the Section 401 and Section 404 permitting processes. Compensatory mitigation will be approved by USACE and RWQCB. (RWQCB 2010; Midpen 2014a; USFWS 2016b). Midpen will implement all permit conditions. d. Interfere Substantially with 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. Migratory species at Toto Ranch include Coho salmon and steelhead, which migrate up Tunitas and Dry Creeks. In addition, many species of birds are migratory, and stop to rest and feed in natural areas along the Pacific Flyway, including Toto Ranch. CRLF are known to move up to 2 miles on warm, rainy spring nights between ponds and other aquatic habitats using upland habitats (Bulger et al. 2003). In drier times of the year, CRLF may utilize creek corridors as movement corridors. Other more common species move through the area, including deer, coyote, mountain lion, and other mammal species. In general, the area that makes up "The Peninsula", east of Highway 1 and Highway 280, is sparsely populated enough to function as an important north -south wildlife corridor between San Francisco and Santa Cruz. Highway 17 functions as a barrier at the south end of this corridor. The fencing currently in place at Toto Ranch, as well as the fencing planned for installation for Projects identified in the RMP, is "wildlife friendly", which means that it is designed to not hinder the passage of wildlife that may be traversing the property. This includes openings for small and medium sized animals, as well as height and spacing specifications of fencing wires that allow easy passage through or over the fencing. Grazing does not occur near Tunitas or Dry Creeks, and there are no changes to creeks or streams that would affect the anadromous fish from migrating upstream. Water quality and riparian habitat are the focus of land management activities, supporting habitat quality within the fish migration corridor. A healthy grazing regime will also maintain ground cover and biodiversity of habitats, which supports grassland species and their prey. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. IS/MND 110 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 e. Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, such as a Tree Preservation Policy or Ordinance. Toto Ranch is located within the Coastal Zone, and is regulated through the San Mateo County LCP. The San Mateo County General Plan and LCP generally require the protection of sensitive habitats and prohibit development that has significant adverse impacts on sensitive habitat areas. These policies are less stringent and focused than the requirements outlined in the RMP, existing permits, and Midpen's guidance documents. The avoidance and minimization measures summarized from these latter documents provide protection for sensitive species and habitats and would minimize potential adverse effects on sensitive habitats that would be consistent with the San Mateo County General Plan and LCP requirements. These measures have been included as part of the proposed Project (refer to Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, Section 2.5, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures, and Appendix B). San Mateo County has designated trees of 12" in diameter or larger (measured at breast height) in any area of the unincorporated County as Significant Trees to prevent their indiscriminate removal. The County requires a permit for the removal of these trees and may require an arborist report to substantiate tree health or safety concerns. For most cases of tree removal, tree replacement will be required. Also, according to their size as stipulated in the Heritage Tree regulations, some trees have been designated Heritage Trees, including some oaks, redwoods, and other trees. The County requires a permit for the trimming or removal of these trees and may require an arborist report with the permit application for trees that may need to be trimmed or removed for tree health and safety reasons. In most cases of tree removal, tree replacement will be required. Both heritage and significant trees occur at Toto Ranch, and none are identified for removal or trimming in the RMP. Thus, there is no conflict with any local policies or ordinances. This impact is considered less than significant. 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. Lands currently held by Midpen are not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other habitat conservation plan. Should Midpen pursue or participate in an HCP or NCCP, the Goals and Policies described above would ensure that Midpen manages lands consistent with any such plan. There would be no impact. IS/MND 111 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.5 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 as defined in Section 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ❑ X ❑ ❑ c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ X ❑ ❑ Existing Conditions The analysis in this section is based on the Archaeological Investigations for the Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project for the Midpen, prepared by professionally qualified staff with Albion Environmental (Albion Environmental 2019). Northwest Information Center (NWIC) Records Search To determine if cultural resources have been recorded within or near Toto Ranch, Albion consulted a number of sources as part of the NWIC records search, including: the California Inventory of Historic Resources, managed by the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (1976); the Historic Property Data File for San Mateo County; and the San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board. One listed cultural resource was identified within 8 miles of Toto Ranch. Additionally, a search of records at the NWIC indicates one archaeological resource within Toto Ranch and three other archaeological resources that have been previously recorded within a quarter -mile of Toto Ranch. The one known archaeological resource within Toto Ranch is located well away from all proposed ground -disturbing activities. The background historical research also revealed that a historic wagon road extended across the southern portion of Toto Ranch by 1894. The current road/driveway extending from the Cabrillo Highway to the modern ranch complex and beyond is in the same location as the wagon road, as depicted on archival maps and photos, and could be the surviving remains of this historic transportation route. The existing driveway, then, is older than 50 years and may be considered a historical resource under CEQA and may be potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. This may also be true for the buildings within the Agricultural and Residential Lease Areas, which also appear on archival maps and photos. The buildings would not be modified through Project implementation; however, the existing driveway may be modified through the construction of the new waterline near the entrance to Toto Ranch. The waterline may be placed under or adjacent to the driveway. IS/MND 112 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Toto Ranch Field Surveys On December 12, 2018, Albion archaeologists conducted a pedestrian surface survey of portions of Toto Ranch where the RMP proposes ground disturbing activities, including construction and maintenance of roads, springs, water tanks, water troughs, water distribution lines and pond improvements. A 50 -foot radius around each improvement Project and stock pond was included as part of the survey area. The remainder of the Project area was not surveyed as ground disturbing activities would not likely occur in these areas as a result of the proposed Project. The surveys within Toto Ranch involved walking the entire extent of each of the Project elements, including the buffer (22.4 acres total), at 5- to 10 -meter intervals to observe the ground surface for evidence of archaeological materials. The survey findings were documented by written notes and photos. Field notes documented details on disturbances, slope, ground cover, soil visibility, vegetation, the built environment, and any cultural material observed. Albion conducted no subsurface testing as part of this study. No archaeological features or artifact concentrations were identified during the pedestrian survey in any of these areas. Refuse associated with the modern farm was noted in places, along with isolated fragments of a historic glass bottle, but none of this material was indicative of buried archaeological deposits. Consequently, based on surface survey, Albion did not identify any materials that would qualify as historical resources under CEQA. Historic Resources Evaluation As described above, the current driveway extending from Cabrillo Highway to the Agricultural Lease Area is considered a potential historic resource. A Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR) was prepared to evaluate the existing driveway (formerly called Starr Hill Road), its significance as a historic resource, potential effects on this resource from future roadway improvements (not part of the proposed Project) and installation of a new waterline under or adjacent to portions of the road (part of the proposed Project) (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2019). The evaluation identified the alignment of the former Starr Hill Road through Toto Ranch as the area of potential effect (APE) and included a literature review to determine if the study area contains previously recorded historic or prehistoric archaeological resources and a pedestrian survey of the APE on April 24, 2019. The HPSR evaluation found that the former Starr Hill Road on Toto Ranch, which serves as the current driveway, is a potentially significant historic resource as it was a wagon road that was used during the late 19th century. The evaluation also determined that improvements —consisting of widening a portion of the roadway, culvert work, and installation of subsurface water pipes within the Project APE —would not adversely affect the significant attributes of the road, which may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and thus the California Register of Historic Resources. IS/MND 113 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 To protect significant areas of the historic Starr Hill Road from inadvertent damage, an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) was delineated within the APE (as shown in Exhibit 17 of the HPSR). As stated in the HPSR: Any alterations to the original road within the ESA must seek to restore and maintain the characteristics of this historic feature. Installation of subsurface pipes, erosion control and minor grading within the APE can occur; however, these actions must include restoration of the surface contours and fabric of the road to its original grade elevation, travel direction, and overall character. With the establishment of the ESA, the HPSR concludes with a Finding of No Adverse Effect or No Significant Impact to significant cultural resources (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2019). Pre- and Post -Contact History of Toto Ranch A detailed account of pre- and post -contact history for San Francisco Bay, and in particular San Mateo County, has been included in the Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project. Because of the sensitivity of archaeological and historical resources that are present within the San Francisco Bay Area, specific information regarding the results of these investigations are not available for public review and have not been include within this IS/MND. However, this information has been taken into account for the purposes of analyses. Discussion a. Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource. As discussed above, the existing driveway and some of the structures in the Farmstead Area are older than 50 years and thus may be considered historical resources under CEQA, and therefore eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. The buildings would not be modified through Project implementation; however, the Project includes the installation of a new waterline adjacent to or under the driveway and repairs to erosion on the former Star Hill Road. As described in Section 1.5.1 under C. Road Repair and Maintenance, waterline installation would include restoration of the surface contours and fabric of the road to its original grade elevation, travel direction, and overall character. As described under the Historic Resources Evaluation above, a HPSR developed for the site determined the Project improvements to the former Star Hill Road alignment —including installation of subsurface pipes, erosion control and minor grading within the APE —would not adversely affect the significant attributes of the road (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2019). Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. However, ground disturbing activities associated with improvement Projects and pond management activities could result in the inadvertent discovery of a buried archaeological resource that could be determined to be a historical resource within Toto Ranch. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Cultural Resources during Construction, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation. IS/MND 114 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Mitigation Measure CR-1: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Cultural Resources during Construction. If evidence of cultural resources are identified during ground disturbance associated with the proposed improvement Projects or pond management activities, the construction crews will stop all work within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist assesses the previously unrecorded discovery and provides recommendations. Resources may include subsurface historic features such as: artifact -filled privies, wells, and refuse pits; artifact deposits along with concentrations of adobe, stone, or concrete walls or foundations; and concentrations of ceramic, glass, or metal materials. Native American archaeological materials may include: obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (such as Projectile and dart points); midden (culturally derived darkened soil containing heat -affected rock, artifacts, animal bones, and/or shellfish remains); and/or groundstone implements (such as mortars and pestles). b. Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource. A records search of known archaeological sites within and adjacent to Toto Ranch revealed one previously discovered site, as discussed above. This site is not located in an area that is proposed for improvement Projects or pond management actions; therefore, ground disturbing activities would not impact this resource (Morley 2017). However, the Project area is located within an area that is considered sensitive for cultural resources. Therefore, ground disturbing activities may reveal previously undiscovered resources which could be determined significant. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Cultural Resources during Construction, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Cultural Resources during Construction. c. Disturb Human Remains (Including those Interred Outside of Dedicated Cemeteries). There are no known human remains or known burial sites that are located within Toto Ranch or within the vicinity of the Project area. However, the San Francisco Bay Area is rich in cultural resources and is considered an overall sensitive area. During ground disturbing Project related activities, including improvement Projects and pond management actions, there is the possibility that unanticipated and accidental discovery of human remains or funerary objects may occur. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Human Remains during Construction, these potential impacts to unknown human remains would be reduced to a less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure CR-2: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Human Remains during Construction. If human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects are discovered during soil -disturbing activities, construction crews will stop work and immediately notify the San Mateo County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist, in accordance with applicable state laws. In the event that the Coroner determines that the IS/MND 115 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 human remains are Native American, Midpen will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) according to the requirements in Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 5097.98. NAHC will appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). A qualified archaeologist, Midpen representative, and MLD will make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment, with appropriate dignity, of any human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[d]). The agreement will take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. The PRC allows 48 hours to reach agreement on these matters. IS/MND 116 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.6 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? ❑ ❑ X ❑ b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Ener Existing Conditions San Mateo County has developed the Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP) to provide guidance in reducing the County's greenhouse gas emissions, while protecting the resources within the County. The plan provides guidance for future development within the County to meet these goals. The goals of the plan are to protect natural systems, reduce overall waste, improve the energy efficiency of buildings and ensure long-term access to reliable, clean and affordable energy. The plan also outlines the County's strategy to adapt to the changing climate through the protection of the built environment, public health and natural resources. Project compliance with this plan are addressed in detail in Section 2.4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Discussion a. Significant Environmental Impact due to Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources. Implementation of the Project would require the use of construction equipment for improvement Projects and pond management activities. Use of diesel -powered equipment would require fossil fuels. However, as described in Section 1.5.3, hand tools would be used when possible and would reduce fossil fuel consumption. Equipment operators would limit idling time to five (5) -minutes, as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485, of California Code of Regulations) (BAAQMD 2017b). As such, use of construction equipment would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Ongoing grazing operations at Toto Ranch would be similar to existing conditions; therefore, an increase in vehicle trips as a result of Project implementation would not be anticipated. No new sources of energy consumption would be installed, with the exception of water infrastructure that would be solar powered, as described in Section 1.5.1(D). Therefore, the ongoing operation of Toto Ranch would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary of energy; and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. b. Conflict with or Obstruct a Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency. The applicable energy efficiency plan for the proposed Project is the San Mateo County EECAP. Project compliance with this plan is addressed in detail in Section 2.4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, below. As described in this section, use of construction equipment throughout Toto Ranch for the implementation of IS/MND 117 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 improvement Projects and pond maintenance actions would implement the EECAP strategy for reducing construction emissions by complying with BAAQMD and CARB idling recommendations, as described in Section 1.5.3. Additionally, the proposed water infrastructure improvements would be solar powered. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the EECAP. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. IS/MND 118 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.7 Geology and Soils Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. 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. ❑ ❑ © ❑ 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ X 3. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ X ❑ 5. Landslides? ❑ ❑ X ❑ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ X ❑ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? ❑ ❑ X ❑ d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ ❑ © ❑ e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Existing Conditions Geologic Setting Toto Ranch is located within San Mateo County, part of the greater San Francisco Bay Area which is considered a seismically active region. Faults are caused by the movement of the earth's crust, which forces bedrock units located on opposite sides of a fault line to slide past each other. These lines are not discretely defined, so movement of the ground surface can occur throughout a fairly wide area that overlies a fault zone. The Project area is not located within the limits of the state Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones 2018; California Department of Conservation 2018). IS/MND 119 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 However, San Mateo County is located in an area designated as having a high Earthquake Shaking Potential as it is located near major, active faults (County of San Mateo 2005). Toto Ranch is located west of the San Andreas Fault and La Honda Fault, east of the San Gregorio- Seal Cove Fault, and north of the Butano and Zayante Faults (California Department of Conservation 2010). The seismically active Hayward and Calveras Fault Zones, which can also generate substantial earthquake shaking, are located well east of the Project area, on the east side of the San Francisco Bay. The U.S. Geological Service has estimated that the San Andreas Fault could produce an earthquake of 8.5 magnitude on the Richter Scale. The San Gregorio fault, a major branch of the San Andreas, is considered capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude 7.2 to 7.9. While the San Andreas Fault is larger and considered more active, each fault is capable of generating moderate to severe ground shaking from a major earthquake. The Project is specifically located in an area designated as having Strong (VII) and Very Strong (VIII) earthquake shaking potential related to the San Andreas Fault, as mapped by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) (County of San Mateo 2005). ABAG designates the area as having Light (V) to Moderate (VI) earthquake shaking potential as a result of the Hayward Fault (County of San Mateo 2005). Consequently, large earthquakes can also be expected in the future. All of San Mateo County is subject to hazards from earthquakes. Because the Project is located within close vicinity to a multitude of fault zones and branches, there is a relatively high potential for ground surface rupture. The Project area is likely to be subject to strong seismic shaking during the life of the improvements. The principal concern related to human exposure to ground shaking and ground surface rupture is that both of these processes can result in structural damages; the Project does not include the addition of inhabitable structures. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where near surface soils lose cohesion and are converted to a fluid state as a result of severe vibration. Structures built in and on soils respond differently to liquefaction. Underground structures, including water conveyance pipelines that are less dense than the liquefied soil, tend to rise to the surface; and structures, including water tanks that are more dense, tend to subside. San Mateo County has designated Toto Ranch as having a very low potential for soil liquefaction (San Mateo County 2005). Throughout Toto Ranch, slopes range from relatively flat within the Residential and Agricultural Lease Areas, to very steep throughout the grazing and grassland pastures of the Livestock Grazing Area. Many of the slopes within Toto Ranch are susceptible to landslides, as are evidenced throughout existing and ongoing slides present throughout the property, and thus erosion and loss of top soil. San Mateo County has designated Toto Ranch as having areas that are flat, support few landslides and areas that are mostly landslides (San Mateo County 2005). IS/MND 120 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Soil Characteristics There are a variety of soil types within the Project area, but the most common soil types and their characteristics relative to grazing are listed below. Refer to the Soil Survey for the San Mateo Area (USDA, 1961) for additional detail. Also refer to Exhibit E for their location in the Project area. • Colma soils are well drained with medium to rapid runoff, suitable for year-round use by grazing livestock without impacting soil stability or creating soil compaction provided prescribed levels of forage are left on the ground. • Gazos loam soils are well drained with high to very high runoff and moderately slow permeability, making them suitable for year-round grazing by livestock. It is important to leave adequate levels of forage on the soil surface to protect soil integrity and minimize the risk of erosion. • Lobitos loam soils are well drained soils that are moderately sloped to very steep, are well drained, with medium to rapid runoff, and have moderate to slow permeability. They are mostly used for pasture and grazing. It is important to leave adequate levels of forage on the soil surface to protect soil integrity and minimize the risk of erosion. • Tierra soils are moderately well drained with slow to rapid runoff and very slow permeability. Tierra soils are suited to year-round livestock grazing, though areas with notably slow permeability are susceptible to soil compaction, and grazing should be delayed until soil is firm enough to withstand grazing pressure, typically summer and fall months. • Tunitas soils are moderately well drained with slow to medium runoff and slow permeability. Areas often receive excess water by runoff from surrounding lands, and lower lying areas may have temporary high water table during rainy seasons (winter). These soils are very limited on the Ranch, but grazing on this soil type is best during dry summer months when soils are firm enough to withstand grazing pressure. • Watsonville soils are on old coastal terraces and valleys and are commonly used as irrigated pasture and to grow crops. Slow to rapid runoff and very slow permeability make Watsonville soils very susceptible to soil compaction. Livestock grazing should be delayed until dry summer months when soils are firm enough to withstand grazing pressure. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are located within geologic deposits or bedrock that underlie the soil layer. Limited paleontological resources have been identified within the County, within exposed bluffs above the ocean bench along the coast, outside of the Project area; but there have been no identified paleontological resources identified throughout Toto Ranch (County of San Mateo 1986). IS/MND 121 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Discussion a. Expose People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects Involving: 1. Rupture of Known Earthquake Fault. The Project area is not within any earthquake fault zones designated by the state under the Alquist-Priolo Act. Accordingly, the risk of surface fault rupture at Toto Ranch is considered low. Furthermore, implementation of the Project would result in improvements to fencing, water transportation infrastructure and roadway repairs, and on -going pond maintenance activities, all of which would involve temporary presence within the Project area to undergo construction activities, but would not result in the construction of any permanent structures that would be inhabited by the public or change in the number of people who reside within the Project area. Therefore, the potential for impacts related to surface fault rupture would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. 2, 3. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking; Seismic -Related Ground Failure. The Project site is likely to experience strong ground shaking during the lifespan of the Project, and the potential for liquefaction throughout Toto Ranch is considered very low (San Mateo County 2005). The principal concern related to human exposure to ground shaking or liquefaction is that both of these processes can result in structural damage. The Project would not result in new aboveground structures that would be inhabited by people, and the Project improvements and additional water infrastructure that would be constructed would improve the reliability of the water system throughout Toto Ranch. Therefore, outside of the lessees and their employees, there is a very low risk that persons would be on site, within the Project area, or checking or maintaining the water infrastructure or Project improvements during a seismic event. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. 4. Landslides. Throughout Toto Ranch, slopes range from relatively flat within the Residential and Agricultural Lease Areas, to intermittently steep throughout the grazing and grassland pastures of the Livestock Grazing Area. Many of the slopes within Toto Ranch are susceptible to landslides; and steep sloped grasslands that are grazed would be further susceptible to erosion and sedimentation, enhancing the potential for landslides. In order to minimize potential landslides that could occur as a result of overgrazing, the RMP has established RDM performance standards per average slope at the conclusion of the grazing season. On steep slopes (those greater than 30%), an average minimum of three to four inches of RDM — approximately an average 1,000 — 1,200 pounds per acre, would be maintained. There would also be no significant areas of bare soil void of vegetation cover in any of the grazed pastures (Exhibit J). Water infrastructure and associated water storage structures would not likely be located in areas susceptible to landslides and nonetheless would be constructed in a manner compliant with the IS/MND 122 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 California Building Code seismic design force standards for San Mateo County, per the County of San Mateo Planning and Building Depai lment's Building Regulations (County of San Mateo 2014). Compliance with these standards would ensure that infrastructure was constructed to withstand expected seismic activity and associated hazards and landslides, thereby minimizing risk to the public and the property. Therefore, hazards associated with landslides are not expected. Additionally, the creation of cut slopes and fill embankments is not anticipated during Project construction, and therefore the potential for safety risks related to instability of cut and/or fill slopes during or following construction would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. b. Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil. The Project area has been identified as an area with intermittently steep slopes throughout the grazing and grassland pastures and thus higher potential for erosion and loss of topsoil. Grazing practices and proposed improvements could potentially exacerbate erosion and loss of top soil. However, grazing practices would be managed and improvement Projects would be implemented largely within areas that do not have steep slopes. On steeper, more erosion -prone slopes and riparian corridors susceptible to soil compaction, grazing would be delayed until soil is firm enough to withstand grazing pressure without impacting soil stability. Livestock grazing would be managed to protect the soil from erosion as loss of the surface layer can severely decrease forage productivity. The RMP also defines a number of measures that would be implemented to control soil erosion and the loss of topsoil through placing limits on grazing practices throughout Toto Ranch. These include requirements to maintain adequate plant cover, allow prescribed levels of residual dry matter (RDM to remain on the soil surface at the conclusion of the grazing season, herd management, and rotating grazing practices throughout Toto Ranch. The management recommendations and erosion control BMPs are described in Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Table 2. Through implementation of the prescribed grazing practices and adherence to the conservation measures and BMPs outlined through the RMP, erosion and the loss of topsoil would be minimized. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. c. Be Located on Unstable Geologic Units or Soil. Following a review of information mapped by San Mateo County (San Mateo County 2005), and a field visit to Toto Ranch, there is no indication that the implementation of improvement Projects or grazing, in accordance with the BMPs that have been defined by the RMP and San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention Program Construction BMPs (June 2014 edition), would contribute to any landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse of soils or local geologic units. Furthermore, implementation of the improvement Projects and grazing program would not create cut or fill slopes that could be unstable. Therefore, impacts related to the potential for Project related activities to cause or increase geologic instability would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. IS/MND 123 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 d. Be Located on Expansive Soil. Expansive soils shrink or swell depending upon water content and can cause damage to structures within or on these soils. Soils with a high clay content are more susceptible to swelling than sand or gravel soils. There are a variety of soil types within the Project area, as discussed above, as mapped by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture 1961). A variety of the soils in the Project area are composed of clay minerals, and expansive soils are typically associated with types of clay minerals, so it is likely that the soils in the Project area have a high shrink swell potential (County of San Mateo 1986). However, the main concern with soils that have a high shrink swell potential are the risks posed to buildings and building inhabitants, and the Project would not result in the construction of habitable structures or other structures that would be subject to the risks associated with constructing buildings in expansive soils. Therefore, risks to life or property as a result of Project implementation in expansive soils would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. e. Be Located on Soils Incapable of Supporting Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems. The lessee of Toto Ranch relies on a septic system for solid waste and wastewater disposal. There would be no change in the population utilizing Toto Ranch as a result of Project implementation. The Project would not include the addition of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact. f. Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Unique Geologic Feature. Implementation of the Project would involve ground disturbing activities through the replacement of fencing, road repairs, water conveyance upgrades and stock pond improvements. The associated excavation required for these activities is not likely deep enough to affect buried paleontological resources, if present. However, as described above, there have been no identified paleontological resources identified throughout Toto Ranch (County of San Mateo 1986). Because the Project area is not located within an area that has been identified as supporting paleontological or geologic resources or characteristics in which paleontological or geologic resources may occur, ground disturbing activities are not expected to disturb paleontological resources. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. I S/M N D 124 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.8 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ❑ ❑ © ❑ Existing Conditions The section briefly describes the environmental and regulatory setting for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. The phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect keeps the atmosphere near the Earth's surface warm enough for the successful habitation of humans and other life forms. Present in the Earth's lower atmosphere, greenhouse gases play a critical role in maintaining the Earth's temperature by trapping some of the long -wave infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's surface that would otherwise escape to space. According to California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15364.5), GHGs encompass the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), perfluorinated carbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the warming of the Earth (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions 2011). Increases in fossil fuel combustion and deforestation have exponentially increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Rising atmospheric concentrations of GHGs in excess of natural levels enhance the greenhouse effect, which contributes to global warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere, inducing large-scale changes in ocean circulation patterns, precipitation patterns, global ice cover, biological distributions, and other changes to the Earth system that are collectively referred to as climate change. Discussion a. Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Construction activities associated with the proposed improvement Projects and pond management would result in an incremental increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by usage of fossil fuels. In accordance with Section 15183.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a plan for the reduction of GHG may be used to analyze whether a Project would result in significant GHG emissions provided that the plan includes specific IS/MND 125 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 elements. Plans that meet the listed requirements are referred to as Qualified GHG Reduction Plans. Plans are required to include an emissions inventory, establish baselines below which GHG emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, estimate future GHG emissions in the covered geographic area, specify measures to meet emissions reduction targets, establish a mechanism to monitor plan progress, and be adopted following environmental review. San Mateo County has adopted an Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP) that is intended to streamline future environmental review of Projects in the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County, by following the CEQA Guidelines and meeting the BAAQMD expectations for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy (San Mateo County 2013). The EECAP includes a development checklist for new Projects to determine consistency with the EECAP. The checklist focuses on ongoing operational emissions, with the exception of measure 15.1, Construction Idling, which requires compliance with BAAQMD best management practices related to idling. The BAAQMD best management practices limit idling time to five (5) minutes, as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485, of California Code of Regulations) (BAAQMD 2017b). Construction on the Project site related to improvement Project and pond management actions would comply with all applicable regulations. In lieu of a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, the BAAQMD has established a screening level threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e for development Projects (BAAQMD 2017b). At the state level, the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a framework of action for California to reduce statewide emissions to achieve the statewide emissions reduction goals of AB 32, S-3- 05, and SB 32 (CARB 2017). The 2017 Scoping Plan Update states "There are recent examples of land use development Projects in California that have demonstrated that it is feasible to design Projects that achieve zero net additional GHG emissions". The CARB recognizes that achieving no net increase in annual ongoing GHG emissions would demonstrate that a Project is not participating in climate change impacts. As such, it is reasonable to assume that a Project that would not result in on -going annual operations would not result in significant GHG emissions. The total GHG emissions estimated for construction of the proposed site improvements and pond management actions were estimated by the Ca1EEMod model, consistent with the assumptions of the air quality analysis above. See Appendix C for detailed model input and output. Estimated emissions are provided in Table 5. Total GHG emissions for pond management activities are provided in Table 6. This analysis conservatively assumes pond management and pond restoration activities involving one small and one very small pond per year. IS/MND 126 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 5. Estimated Total Construction GHG Emissions Improvement Location Metric Tons CO2e Roadway Repairs 72 New Fencing 4 Agricultural Lease Water Line 10 Field 3 Water System 14 Total GHG Emissions 100 Note: Emission quantities are rounded to the nearest whole number. Exact values are provided in Appendix C. Table 6. Estimated Annual Pond Management GHG Emissions Pond Size Metric Tons CO2e Small 16 Very Small 8 Total Annual GHG Emissions 24 Note: Emission quantities are rounded to the nearest whole number. Exact values are provided in Appendix C. As shown in Table 5, the proposed improvement Projects would result in a total of 100 -MT CO2e over the duration of construction. The proposed Project would be responsible for an incremental increase in GHG emissions by the usage of fossil fuels throughout construction activities. Following construction, the Project would have no long-term impact on vehicle miles traveled or energy use in the County. Pond management activities would have the potential to result in annual GHG emissions of 24 - MT CO2e. As shown in Table 6, pond management activities would also comply with all applicable BAAQMD and CARB regulations, including idling restrictions, in compliance with the EECAP. Also refer to Section 1.5.3 for proposed measures included in the Project to reduce GHG emissions. Emissions are well below the BAAQMD screening level of 1,100 MT CO2e and close to net zero. Emissions would also be expected to decrease over time as emissions standards for construction equipment become increasingly stringent. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a significant on -going net increase in annual GHG emissions and would comply with the EECAP measure related to construction. As a result, Project GHG emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. b. Potential conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. See the discussion under G-1 above. This impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation would be required. IS/MND 127 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.9 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? ❑ ❑ X ■ b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ I@ ❑ c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling 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 Be located on a site that 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ I@ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 101 f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ X g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? ❑ ❑ @ ❑ Existing Conditions A government records search conducted in December 2018 revealed that no portion of the Project area is listed on the Cortese List, a compilation of information from various sources listing potential and confirmed hazardous waste and hazardous materials sites in California.3 There were no existing or remediated sites that were identified through a search of the Project area, or area within a 1,000 -foot parameter of the area. 3 The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning resource used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code, Section 65962.5, requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop, at least annually, an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies, including the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Integrated Waste Management Board, are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. IS/MND 128 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 There are no public airports, public use airports, or private airstrips located near Toto Ranch. The nearest airport facility, Half Moon Bay Airport, is located approximately 13 miles north of Toto Ranch. In addition, the Las Trancas airstrip, a private facility, is located approximately 20 miles south of Toto Ranch. Toto Ranch is located in unincorporated San Mateo County for which fire service is provided by the San Mateo Division of CAL FIRE. The Project area is located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA), and fire severity zones have been mapped to identify the likelihood that an area may burn and risks associated with fire throughout the service area (CAL FIRE 2007). Within Toto Ranch there are areas that have been identified as both moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. The San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services and Homeland Security maintains the Countywide Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) (San Mateo County 2015). The EOP is the base plan that governs the roles and responsibilities of the County in times of emergency or disaster. The EOP assigns responsibilities to organizations and individuals for carrying out specific actions in the event of emergencies, sets forth lines of authority for how actions will be coordinated, identifies personnel, equipment and facilities to respond to emergencies, and reconciles these requirements with other jurisdictions. The northwestern portion of the Project area, where the Project meets Tunitas Creek, is in the County of San Mateo Tsunami Evacuation Zone (San Mateo County GIS 2013). There are two (2) Tsunami Shelters located approximately ten (10) miles north and south of the Project area; one is located at Half Moon Bay High School and the other is located at Pescadero High School (County of San Mateo 2015), both accessed by the Cabrillo Highway. Discussion a, b. Create a Hazard through Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials or through Upset and Accident Conditions. Construction and maintenance activities associated with the Project improvements (e.g., fencing and water infrastructure) and pond management activities are not expected to create a hazard to the public through transport, use or disposal of, or accidental release of hazardous materials. As these facilities are repaired and upgraded, there would be metals, wood and plastics materials that would need to be transported to appropriate disposal and recycling facility; but these materials are not considered hazardous. The closest disposal facility is the Pescadero Transfer Station located on Bean Hollow Road in Pescadero, approximately seven (7) miles south of the Project area. Hazardous materials associated with Project construction and maintenance activities may include fuel, oils, grease, lubricants, and other petroleum -based products contained in vehicles and equipment, as well as materials used during the construction process, such as solvents and adhesives, as well as asphalt for road repairs. There is potential for inadvertent or accidental spill or leak to occur during construction activities. These construction -related hazardous materials IS/MND 129 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 would be transported, stored, and handled in a manner consistent with relevant regulations and guidelines, including those recommended and enforced by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and the San Mateo County Human Services Department. Because compliance with existing regulations is mandatory, the Project is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities. Operational activities would be similar to existing conditions, as grazing would continue throughout Toto Ranch, and the implementation of the RMP would not create any new hazards through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through upset and accident conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. c. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Materials within 0.25 mile of Schools. There are no schools located within 0.25 miles of Toto Ranch. Therefore, there would be no impact. d. Project Located on Listed Site. A government records search conducted in December 2018 revealed that no portion of the Project area is listed on the Cortese List, a compilation of information from various sources listing potential and confirmed hazardous waste and hazardous materials sites in California (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov) (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ public). Therefore, there would be no impact. e. Within Vicinity of Public or Private Airstrip. Toto Ranch is not located within two (2) miles of any public airports, public use airports, or private airstrips. The nearest airport facility, Half Moon Bay Airport, is located approximately 13 miles north of Toto Ranch. In addition, the Las Trancas airstrip, a private facility, is located approximately 20 miles south of Toto Ranch. Consequently, the Project would not conflict with an airport land use plan or operation of nearby airports, or pose a related safety hazard to people living or working on the Toto Ranch property. There would be no impact. f. Interfere with Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan. The Project area is located east of the Cabrillo Highway, accessed through a private driveway. There are a number of graveled and/or dirt roadways that provide access throughout Toto Ranch that are not accessible by the public, and are used by the lessee and Midpen for maintenance and management actions associated with grazing operations. Through implementation of the Project, roadways within Toto Ranch would be improved, thereby improving access throughout the site in the event that emergency vehicles were required. Throughout implementation of the proposed improvement Projects, slow -moving construction vehicles could delay or obstruct the movement of emergency vehicles along the Cabrillo Highway. IS/MND 130 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 The northwestern portion of the Project area, where the Project meets Tunitas Creek, is in the County of San Mateo Tsunami Evacuation Zone (San Mateo County GIS 2013). There are two (2) Tsunami Shelters located approximately ten (10) miles north and south of the Project area; one is located at Half Moon Bay High School and the other is located at Pescadero High School (County of San Mateo 2015), both accessed by the Cabrillo Highway. In order to minimize construction vehicle related slowdowns on the Cabrillo Highway, construction vehicles would be stored on site throughout improvement activities, and would therefore minimize travel time on local roadways and the Cabrillo Highway, allowing for ongoing unimpeded public access within the Tsunami Evacuation Zone. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. g. Exposure to Risks Involving Wildland Fires. Toto Ranch is located within a largely unpopulated area along the coastline of San Mateo County. Sprawling agricultural operations, grazing pastures and open fields surround the Project area. Fire service for this area is provided by the San Mateo Division of CAL FIRE. The Project area is located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and fire severity zones have been mapped to identify the likelihood that an area may burn and risks associated with the fire throughout the service area (CAL FIRE 2007). Within Toto Ranch there are areas that have been identified as both moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. Through implementation of the Project, the water conveyance infrastructure throughout the Project area would be improved, providing additional water management capabilities. More extensive grazing that is proposed through the RMP would also reduce the overall vegetative fuel load throughout the Project area to support fire suppression actions throughout Toto Ranch in the event of a wildland fire. This would be a beneficial impact. The Project would not result in the addition of habitable structures, and would not increase the number of people that are present throughout Toto Ranch. The lessee and employees associated with agricultural and grazing operations throughout the Project area would remain largely the same. Therefore, there would be no impact to people or structures associated with increasing risks associated with wildland fires IS/MND 131 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.10 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 ground water quality? ❑ ❑ X ■ b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? ❑ ❑ I@ ❑ 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@ ❑ i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ X ❑ ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? ❑ ❑ X ❑ iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ❑ ❑ © ❑ iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ X ❑ d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? ❑ ❑ X ❑ e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Existing Conditions Tunitas Creek flows from North to South, meeting Dry Creek which creates the northern boundary of the Project area, approximately I/4 -mile inland from the Cabrillo Highway (Exhibit B). At this confluence, the two creeks join and meet the Pacific Ocean approximately 1/4 -mile west of Cabrillo Highway. The creeks are not used as a water source for the Residential or Agricultural Lease Area operations of Toto Ranch, and livestock do not have access to Tunitas Creek or Dry Creek. Historically, Toto Ranch has lacked ample water supply, particularly under drought conditions, to provide adequate residential and water for cattle grazing operations year-round. Water supply for livestock within the Farmstead Area (Agriculture and Residential Lease Areas) and pastureland adjacent to the Farmstead Area within the Livestock Grazing Area is provided through a number of water troughs that are supplied water via two (2) wells on the ridge near the IS/MND 132 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 south property boundary. One well is pumped via a solar pump and the second via a windmill (Exhibit F). In addition to the developed water systems, a network of stockponds and seasonal catchments provide stock water throughout Toto Ranch, as discussed in Section 1.4.4 of the Project Description. A number of natural springs are also present throughout Toto Ranch, and water for the Agriculture and Residential Lease Areas is provided via a natural spring located on the ridge to the south of the farmstead (Exhibit F). There are no municipal water services provided to Toto Ranch. Through implementation of the Project, a number of improvements would be made to the water conveyance infrastructure, and overall water availability, throughout Toto Ranch, as discussed in Section 1.5.1 of the Project Description. As a result of these improvements, additional flexibility in the number of cattle that may graze on Toto Ranch would be possible, with the goal of increasing the number of cattle within the Project area. Based on management numbers identified in the RMP (Appendix A), the increase in the number of cattle grazing at Toto Ranch would result in an increase in water demand by approximately 7-10%. This would result in additional groundwater pumping within the Project area, particularly during dry years where a heavier reliance on water infrastructure would be necessary with the drying of surface water sources. This increase would be offset through the changes in the water infrastructure and pond improvements that would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of water conveyance throughout Toto Ranch, and allow for further rotation of cattle to extend grazing opportunities. Therefore, the overall increase in water demand would be minimal, and would not be directly correlated with the percentage increase in cattle. Improved water management would also be used to enhance habitats for special -status species, including CRLF and San Francisco garter snake. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped one flood zone from the confluence of Tunitas and Dry Creeks to the Pacific Ocean, along the northern boundary of the Project area. This area has been mapped as Zone A, with a flooding probability of once every 100 years (FEMA 2012). This area has also been identified as an area that could support hazardous debris flows, as woody material and sediment move through the creek channels, contributing to the potential for flooding in this area. The remainder of the Project area is outside of both the 100- and 500 -year flood zones (FEMA 2012). The California Department of Conservation has mapped tsunami inundation areas'. The northwestern portion of the Project area, where the Project meets Tunitas Creek, is in the County of San Mateo Tsunami Evacuation Zone (San Mateo County GIS 2013). The evacuation zone is based on the 2009 Tsunami Inundation maps prepared by the California Emergency Management Agency.' In most areas, the recommended evacuation zones extend some distance beyond the 4 www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/Tsunami/Maps/SanMateo.aspx. http://myhazards.caloes.ca.gov. IS/MND 133 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 potential inundation areas designated by Cal EMA to provide an additional margin of safety. The Project area is outside the Cal OES Tsunami Emergency Response Planning Zone. Toto Ranch is included within the San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan that was developed by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2017. The purpose of the plan is to regulate surface and groundwater quality, and to provide a tool for watershed management and planning within the region. The San Gregorio Valley Basin is the closest groundwater basin to Toto Ranch, located just south of the Project area. The basin is approximately 2 square miles, ranging from 31 to 430 feet deep, with an average depth of 146 feet (California Department of Water Resources 2014). Discussion a. Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements; Degrade Water Quality. Project construction and ongoing maintenance activities associated with proposed improvement Projects or pond management are not expected to contribute to reduced water quality in local water bodies. Although runoff associated with any ground disturbing activities could contain soil and other pollutants such as fuel, oils, grease, lubricants, solvents, and other materials associated with construction equipment and activities, any potential impacts that could occur as a result of the release of the above -mentioned materials through Project construction would be minimized and contained through implementation of BMPs and minimization measures identified in the Project Description (refer to Section 1.5.3, Avoidance and Minimization Measures). Through the implementation of the RMP, grazing practices would be extended throughout Toto Ranch, including additional vegetation management practices. This would improve soil conditions throughout the Project area, as RDM would be monitored to ensure that vegetative cover was maintained to minimize erosion and sedimentation, improving water quality within ponds and drainages throughout the Project area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not violate any water quality standards and would not degrade water quality throughout Toto Ranch. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. b. Groundwater. Groundwater conditions would not be adversely altered through implementation of improvement actions or grazing practices as identified in the RMP or through stock pond management actions. Management of Toto Ranch is largely reliant on surface water. During dry years, additional groundwater would be pumped to provide sustainable water sources for grazing cattle. Through the proposed improvements in water infrastructure, groundwater would be used more effectively following implementation of water infrastructure improvements, as discussed above. Based on the water budget for the Project area, sustainable water is available to support increased cattle grazing numbers throughout the Project area; the limiting factor to support grazing cattle is in the flexibility in moving water throughout the Project area to support the I S/M N D 134 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 cattle. Improvements to the water infrastructure and ponds throughout the Project area would improve the ability of Midpen and the lessee to move water. Therefore, increasing the number of cattle grazing throughout the Project area would result in only minor increases in groundwater pumping, particularly during dry years, even if the maximum number of cattle were grazing the Project area, as defined in the RMP. Therefore, there would be not be a substantial change in the use of groundwater as a result of the Project, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. Implementation of the Project would also not result in changes in an increase in impermeable surfaces throughout the Project area. The Project would result in more efficient grazing practices and water conveyance throughout Toto Ranch, but would not result in the addition of impervious surfaces or groundwater recharge. Future removal of coyote brush throughout the Project area would further improve the infiltration rates throughout the Project area. Therefore, implementation would not require any changes in the way that groundwater is managed throughout the basin. Thus, the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. c. Alterations in Drainage Contributing to Increased Erosion, Siltation, Flooding, or Excess/Redirected Runoff. Implementation of the Project would result in changes to the water infrastructure and grazing practices throughout Toto Ranch, resulting in changes in the way that surface flows and groundwater are conveyed, stored and utilized throughout the Project area. As described in Section 1.5.3, all activity would be undertaken utilizing BMPs to minimize erosion and siltation throughout the Project area. There would be no change in drainage into Tunitas or Dry Creeks, and no Project actions would result in additional flooding risks. Implementation of the Project would result in an improved ability to manage surface flows throughout the Project area, and expand the area that could be sustainably grazed, resulting in a beneficial impact to overall site conditions, that would improve runoff and improve the permeability of the lands throughout Toto Ranch. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. d. Release Pollutants due to Flooding, Tsunami or Seiche. Implementation of the RMP and pond management activities would not result in the addition of pollutants to the Project area. Any chemical and/or fuels associated with construction vehicles that may be present on site would be managed through BMPs, as described in Section 1.5.3 of the Project Description. Along the confluence of Tunitas and Dry Creeks along the northern perimeter of Toto Ranch to the Pacific Ocean, the Project area is located within the 100 -year flood zones. Project implementation would not result in any changes to this portion of the Project area, or result in additional debris load within the creeks, that would not change the potential for flooding within or adjacent to the Project area, or that in turn could result in release of pollutants due to Project area inundation. IS/MND 135 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Although Toto Ranch is located east of the Cabrillo Highway, the Project area is located in close proximity to the Pacific Ocean where a seiche, tsunami or mudflows may occur. The northwest portion of the Project area, where the Project meets Tunitas Creek, is in the County's Tsunami Evacuation Zone (San Mateo County GIS 2013), but the Project area is outside the Cal OES Tsunami Emergency Response Planning Zone. The Project would not introduce any physical features that would change the potential risks of these disasters occurring, or the potential impacts that they would have within the Project area, or on adjacent lands. As water conveyance infrastructure improvements are implemented throughout Toto Ranch, older infrastructure would be removed, thereby improving the overall stability of the water conveyance system in the event of a natural disaster. Further, ongoing implementation of the BMPs described in Section 1.5.3 would minimize and avoid the presence of pollutants in the Project area. Because there would be no additional pollutants, structures or physical features that would be added within Toto Ranch as a result of RMP implementation or pond management activities, the potential for pollutants released as a result of a natural disaster would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. e. Conflict or Obstruct Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan or Groundwater Management Plan. Toto Ranch is included within the San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan that was developed by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2017. The Project would not introduce any additional pollutants to either surface waters or groundwater as a result of RMP implementation, or pond management activities, as discussed above. The proposed BMPs described in Section 1.5.3 would further minimize any potential sedimentation or erosion that could result in water quality degradation as a result of ground disturbing activities throughout or adjacent to the Project area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would comply with the San Francisco Basin Water Quality Control Plan, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. IS/MND 136 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.11 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ■ X ■ Existing Conditions Toto Ranch is located on the coast along the Cabrillo Highway in rural San Mateo County. The area is characterized by rolling, grassy hills interspersed with rural residences and structures related to agricultural productions. Fencing divides the properties, and there are large expanses of grasslands and riparian corridors throughout the region. Toto Ranch is characterized by large pastures that are divided by New Zealand style fencing. There are unpaved roadways that provide access throughout the site, and the site is nearly flat in the Residential and Agricultural Lease Areas within the middle of the Project area, surrounded by fairly steep to very steep hillsides that support grassy open lands. The nearest communities consisting of a populated community are the unincorporated community of San Gregorio approximately one mile to the south, and the City of Half Moon Bay approximately nine miles to the north. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, these communities have estimated populations of 214 and 12,870, respectively. The San Mateo County General Plan has designated Toto Ranch as Agricultural Rural (San Mateo County 2005), and the Project area is zoned for Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development (PAD/CD) within the County of San Mateo Coastal Zone (San Mateo County GIS 2016). These areas are to be preserved and fostered to protect existing and potential agricultural operations in San Mateo County, and to minimize conflicts between non-agricultural and agricultural land uses. The Project area is also located within the coastal zone and is subject to the California Coastal Act of 1976. The Project area is within the area that is regulated through the LCP for San Mateo County (County of San Mateo 2018b). The California Coastal Act establishes procedures for the review of proposed developments in the coastal zone and policies for the protection of coastal resources and public access to the coastline. There are a number of regulations pertaining to the protection of the coastal lands and natural resources they support, while providing public access to the coastline. The Project would require a consolidated permit for compliance with the IS/MND 137 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 California Coastal Act to include all proposed activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, infrastructure improvements) in areas that include sensitive habitat. Discussion a. Physically Divide a Community. Implementation of the Project would occur within the Toto Ranch property that supports only the lessee and associated residential and agricultural structures. There would be no change in the land uses within the Project area, and there is no community within which Toto Ranch is located. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not physically divide a community. There would be no impact. b. Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation. The San Mateo County General Plan has designated Toto Ranch as an Agricultural Rural Area (San Mateo County 2005), and it is zoned for Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development (PAD/CD) within the County of San Mateo Coastal Zone (San Mateo County GIS 2016). Implementation of the Project would result in the continuation of land uses and activities within Toto Ranch that support agricultural land uses, and would be consistent with both the County land use and zoning. The Project would also be consistent with California Coastal Act regulations pertaining to the protection of coastal lands and the natural resources they support by managing the grazing to ensure the sustainability of agricultural production while protecting the overall rangeland health, soil stability, water quality and the control of invasive vegetation to cooperatively conserve and enhance habitat for wildlife. Some of the proposed activities could involve vegetation clearing or infrastructure improvements in areas that provide sensitive habitat, and these potential impacts are addressed in Section 2.4.4, Biological Resources. Because the Project area is located on the inland side of Cabrillo Highway and is not currently accessible to the public, there would be no effects on public access to the coastline. The Project would not conflict with any relevant land use policies or regulations through the San Mateo County General Plan and would be consistent with California Coastal Act regulations pertaining to the protection of natural resources. Therefore, the Project would not result in 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. Potential impacts to sensitive habitat and natural resources protected by General Plan and Coastal Act regulations would be minimized or avoided through implementation of the measures identified in Section 1.5.3 of the Project description, and by additional mitigation measures identified in Section 2.4.4, Biological Resources. The impact would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation would be required. IS/MND 138 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.12 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ X 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Existing Conditions The principal legislation addressing mineral resources in California is the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) (PRC Sections 2710-2719), which was enacted in response to land use conflicts between urban growth and essential mineral production. In accordance with SMARA, the California Geological Survey (CGS), formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology, classified lands within the San Francisco -Monterey Bay region into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) as follows. • MRZ-1: Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-2: Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. • MRZ-3: Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. • MRZ-4: Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment into any other MRZ. The San Mateo County General Plan has identified an area supporting a significant mineral resource area adjacent to the Tunitas Creek preserve (San Mateo County 2005). However, there are no mineral resources that have been identified within Toto Ranch. There are no active quarries on lands that are managed by Midpen (San Mateo County 2005). Discussion a. Loss of Availability of Known Mineral Resources to the Region or State. Toto Ranch has not been identified as an area that supports known mineral resources of value to the region or the state. Implementation of the Project would involve improvement Projects throughout Toto Ranch for water and roadway infrastructure improvements, and pond management activities. These actions would require grading and some limited excavation. Because the Project area does not contain IS/MND 139 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 known mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance, nor would the Project involved excavation to depths that could impact such resources if they were present. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact on mineral resources. b. Loss of Availability of Locally -Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site. Toto Ranch has been zoned for Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development (PAD/CZ), which is not considered to be an Extractive Use Zone (M-3) for mineral resources. The Project area also does not have a Land Use Designation with a Quarry Designation Overlay (San Mateo County 2005). Therefore, no potential significant loss of availability of a known mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan would occur as a result of this Project. There would be no impact. IS/MND 140 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.13 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? ❑ ❑ X ❑ b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Existing Conditions Toto Ranch is located within rural San Mateo County, and is surrounded by rolling open space that supports interspersed residences and structures associated with agricultural production. Across the Cabrillo Highway, the landscape is dotted with small beaches and sharp cliff drops leading to the Pacific Ocean. The existing noise environment within the Project area and vicinity of the Project area results from agricultural production noises within the Residential and Agricultural Lease Areas of Toto Ranch, and occasional cars along the Cabrillo Highway, in addition to the noise made by grazing cattle. The size of the Project area, in additional to the natural topography and proximity to the Pacific Ocean, provides an overall quiet setting within Toto Ranch. San Mateo County Code of Ordinances Section 4.88 of the San Mateo County Code of Ordinances regulates unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise. Section 4.88.360 exempts construction noise from the ordinance, as long as construction activities do not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. weekdays, 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays or any time on Sundays, Thanksgiving and Christmas. Noise -Sensitive Land Uses Noise -sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Noise -sensitive land uses typically include residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodgings, libraries and certain types of passive recreational uses, such as parks to be used for reading, conversing or meditation. Noise - sensitive land uses within and adjacent to Toto Ranch include the residence within Toto Ranch. There are no additional residential or noise sensitive land uses located within or adjacent to the Project area. IS/MND 141 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Vibration -Sensitive Land Uses Vibration -sensitive land uses are those with which groundborne vibration could potentially interfere with operations or equipment, such as research, manufacturing, hospitals, and university research operations (FTA 2018). There are no vibration -sensitive land uses in the Project area. Regarding the existing residence in the Project area, the FTA has published vibration impact criteria to determine whether vibration would result in an annoyance to residents. Construction vibration is subject to the FTA's infrequent event criteria because operation of vibration - generating equipment is anticipated to be intermittent throughout the day in the vicinity of an individual receptor. Residences fall into FTA Land Use Category 2, which is a receptor where people normally sleep. The FTA identifies 80 VdB as the generation level from infrequent events that would potentially disturb residents. Discussion a. Generate Increase in Ambient Noise in Excess of Standards Established in Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance. The proposed Project is a plan for the continued operation of Toto Ranch. Implementation of the plan would involve several small improvement Projects, and ongoing pond management activities. These improvement Projects and pond management actions would potentially involve the use of construction equipment and result in short-term noise increases in the immediate vicinity of construction. Section 4.88 of the San Mateo County Code of Ordinances regulates unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise. Section 4.88.360 exempts construction noise from the ordinance, as long as construction activities do not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. weekdays, 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays, Thanksgiving and Christmas. Construction of the proposed improvement Projects and pond management activities would occur during the day, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and would therefore comply with the County's noise ordinance. When in use, due to the small size of the improvement areas and ponds, only one piece of construction equipment would be anticipated to be in operation at a time. The FTA Noise and Vibration Manual provides reference noise levels for a range of typical construction equipment. Equipment noise levels from equipment ranges from 76 to 101 dBA at 50 feet from operation. It is conservatively assumed that a rock drill would be the noisiest piece of equipment potentially required for either improvement construction or pond management. A drill may be required on rare occasions during fencing installation. A typical rock drill produces a sound level of 95 dBA at 50 feet from operation. The closest receptor to any improvement Project area or pond is a residence located on Tunitas Creek Road, approximately 900 feet north of the nearest improvement area (fencing installation). At this distance, noise from a rock drill would be reduced to 70 dBA. As previously stated, construction noise is exempt from the County's noise ordinance. However, this noise level is consistent with the County's exterior noise standard of 70 dBA for very short daytime events IS/MND 142 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 such as occasional drilling. Additionally, as the proposed improvement Projects are generally linear, construction would only be operating in a particular location for a few days. Pond management activities would occur for a maximum of six weeks at the same locations in any giving year. Therefore, construction and pond management noise would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels and this impact would be less than significant. Following construction, no change in vehicle trips is anticipated as a result of the Project because operation would be similar to existing conditions. One new pump station is proposed that would potentially generate new operation noise. The pump station would be solar powered. Because the pump would be relatively small compared to municipal pumps, and would utilize solar power, which is typically quieter than a diesel -powered pump, the typical noise level of 77 dBA at 50 feet for a stationary water pump for construction is assumed (FTA 2018). The nearest receptor to Field 3, where the pump would be installed, is a residence on Tunitas Creek, located approximately 3,000 feet (0.6 mile) north of the field. At this distance, pump noise would likely be less than 45 dBA and would not be audible over existing ambient noise. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant. b. Expose Persons to or Generate Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels. As defined by the FTA, there are no vibration sensitive land uses within the Project area. The nearest receptor to the Project area is the residence located 900 feet north of the fencing improvement alignment. As described above, the FTA identifies 80 VdB as the generation level from infrequent events that would potentially disturb residents. Representative typical vibration levels for construction equipment potentially required for the proposed improvements and pond management activities are provided in Table 7. As shown in Table 7, vibration levels from construction equipment would be reduced to a maximum of 80 VdB beyond 45 feet from the construction areas. Therefore, residents would not have the potential to be exposed to vibration levels in excess of 80 VdB that would potentially result in annoyance. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. Table 7. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Approximate VdB at 25 feet Approximate VdB at 45 feet1 Loaded Trucks Small Bulldozer 86 58 Source: FTA 2018. Note: Based on the formula VdB = VdB (25 feet) — 30log(d/25) provided by the FTA (2006) 78 49 IS/MND 143 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.14 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 (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Displace a substantial number of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ■ ■ ■ X Existing Conditions According to the United States Census Bureau, the latest population estimate for San Mateo County in July of 2017 was 771,410. The estimated annual growth rate for the County is 0.24 percent. The 987 -acre Project area is primarily undeveloped open space with a 12 -acre Residential Lease Area that includes one ranch house where the lessee resides, Implementation of the RMP and pond management activities would not result in the addition of residential development, or changes in land uses, that would support population growth within the Project area, or the greater San Mateo County. The Project area would largely continue to support existing land uses. Discussion a. Induce Population Growth. Implementation of the Project would not result changes in land uses or unplanned population growth, either through the addition of new housing or indirectly through the extension of roadway or general infrastructure. Improvements to the water conveyance infrastructure within Toto Ranch would improve the ability for the lessee and Midpen to move water more freely throughout the site, expanding the areas that may be used for grazing operations. However, there would not be additional water available for human consumption, or that would support inhabitable structures. Therefore, there would be no impact. b. Displace Existing Housing Units or People. The Project would not involve the displacement of housing units or people. The lessee would remain in place, and there would be no change in the residence located within Toto Ranch. There would be no impact. I S/M N D 144 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.15 Public Services Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 101 Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 101 Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 101 Existing Conditions Public services are provided for Toto Ranch through a variety of local resources. Fire Protection. There are seven (7) fire stations operated by the San Mateo Division of CAL FIRE that provide fire protection and prevention, and emergency medical services, for the unincorporated portion of the County. The Project is located approximately seven (7) miles from San Mateo County Fire Station 59 in Pescadero and fourteen (14) miles from Fire Stations 55 in Loma Mar and 57 in La Honda. Police Protection. The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office, within the Coastside Patrol Bureau, which supports multiple substations to respond to coastal incidents to provide police protection for Toto Ranch and the surrounding area. The Half Moon Bay Substation, located in Half Moon Bay, is approximately nine (9) miles north of the Project area. This substation responds to calls and provides patrol and other services in the Project area's vicinity. Schools. Toto Ranch is located within the Cabrillo Unified School District. The closest elementary school to the Project area is Alvin S Hatch Elementary School, located in Half Moon Bay. The San Mateo Union High School District serves the Project area, and includes the closest high school, Half Moon Bay High School. Parks. The San Mateo Coastline supports many recreational and nature viewing opportunities located within the general vicinity of Toto Ranch, which of itself is a preserve managed by Midpen, and is IS/MND 145 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 not open to the public. There are no County, state, or other park facilities located within or adjacent to the Project area. Refer to Section 2.4.16, Recreation, for other recreation opportunities. Other Public Facilities. Medical facilities supporting the Project area include the San Mateo Coastside Clinic in Half Moon Bay, which can provide services for smaller incidents and general medical care. Sequoia Hospital in Redwood City provides the closest full hospital services. Discussion Provision of Public Services. Implementation of the Project would result in the management of grazing opportunities within the Toto Ranch, including infrastructure improvements and the ongoing management of stock ponds. The Project would not result in any new permanent facilities, structures, or uses that would generate the need for additional fire or police services, or that would generate additional students that would require support from local school districts. The Project would also not generate new or increased demand for parks or other public facilities as the Project would not result in an increase in the population of San Mateo County or draw a larger population to utilize the area surrounding Toto Ranch. Therefore, there would be no impact. IS/MND 146 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.16 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ Existing Conditions The San Mateo Coastline supports many recreational and nature viewing opportunities located within the general vicinity of Toto Ranch, which of itself is a preserve managed by Midpen, and is not open to the public. Tunitas Creek Beach is located approximately 1,200 feet west of the northwestern boundary of the Project area. Tunitas Beach is not currently a public beach, although it is it is illegally and frequently accessed via a steep trail off of Tunitas Creek Road. In November 2017, Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) acquired 58 acres of the beach area located west of the Project boundary and plans to build reliable public access routes, parking areas, restrooms, and other facilities by 2020 should they receive the required funding (Moore 2017). There are also a variety of California State Beaches located west of the Project area. San Gregorio State Beach and Pomponio State Beach are located approximately 1.5 miles and 3 miles, respectively, southwest of the Project area and can be accessed by parking along Cabrillo Highway. Midpen also manages a number of open space preserves within the vicinity of the Project area. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve is located approximately 4 miles east of the eastern boundary of the Project area and offers more than 30 miles of multi -use trails (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space 2019). The La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve is located approximately 5 miles east of the Project area and also offers permitted hiking and horseback riding to the public. Discussion a. Increase Use of Existing Parks or Recreational Facilities Resulting in Physical Deterioration of Resources and Facilities. Implementation of the Project would not result in a change in the population that would utilize Toto Ranch, or would result in an additional in population that would access the San Mateo coastline. Therefore, there would not be an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of the Project, IS/MND 147 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 or subsequent degradation of the existing neighborhood and regional parks as a result of Project implementation. There would be no impact. b. Include Recreational Facilities or Require Additional Recreational Facilities. The Project would result in improvement and management activities within Toto Ranch to enhance the Project area for natural resources and enhance grazing opportunities. Toto Ranch would remain closed to the general public, and the actions that would occur within Toto Ranch as a result of Project implementation would not result in a population increase or otherwise require the expansion of existing or the generation of new recreational facilities. There would be no impact. IS/MND 148 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.17 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. For a land use Project, would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1)? ❑ ❑ © ❑ c. For a transportation Project, would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(2)? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ d. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ❑ X e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ■ ■ ■ X Existing Conditions Toto Ranch is located on the east side of the Cabrillo Highway, within unincorporated San Mateo County. All roadways within Toto Ranch are private and accessed only by the lessee, staff associated with agricultural production practices on the land, and Midpen staff for maintenance purposes. There are no local bus routes that utilize the Cabrillo Highway near the Project area, and there are no pedestrian pathways within or adjacent to the Project area. Cabrillo Highway, adjacent to Toto Ranch, has been proposed as a Class III Bicycle Route in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (San Mateo County 2011). Bicycle use of the Cabrillo Highway is limited to the shoulders of the roadway adjacent to the Project area. Discussion a. Conflict with a Circulation Plan, Including Transit, Roadway, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. The Project would result in the continuation of currently ongoing agricultural and grazing practices at Toto Ranch, with internal modifications to improve grazing practices. These modifications (e.g., fence and roadway repairs, pond management) would periodically require construction -related vehicles to travel to the site. However, these trips would be similar to other ongoing Projects normally associated with operating the Farmstead. With Project implementation, access and travel to and within Toto Ranch, by the lessee and employees associated with the agricultural practices that are being undertaken throughout the property, would continue similar to existing conditions. Similarly, Midpen staff and construction staff would be present throughout implementation of improvement actions throughout Toto Ranch as part of ongoing operations and maintenance activities. Ongoing infrastructure maintenance staff IS/MND 149 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 who currently visit the Project area would continue to visit the area for periodic inspections with no substantial increase in trips compared with current conditions. Because the number of trips would be similar, there would be no substantial change in trips, and the Project would not degrade the operation of local roadways. Currently, there are no bus, bicycle paths or pedestrian paths within Toto Ranch that are open to the public. Cyclists utilize the Cabrillo Highway bike lanes, and these would remain open throughout Project implementation. Because there would be no changes in circulation along Cabrillo Highway, and no changes in bus, bicycle or pedestrian access along this roadway as result of Project implementation, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b, c. Conflict with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)(1) or (b)(2). As discussed above, implementation of the Project would not change activities that currently occur on Toto Ranch, and access to the site would remain largely the same as current conditions, limited to the lessee, employees that support the agricultural practices of the lessee, and Midpen staff. Land uses would remain the same, and no changes in the existing circulation system along the Cabrillo Highway, adjacent to the Project area, are proposed or anticipated. Therefore, the vehicle miles travelled would be similar to and not substantially change from those under existing conditions. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. d. Increase Hazards due to Design Feature. The proposed Project does not include design features or new uses that would change the existing traffic operations along Cabrillo Highway, adjacent to the Project area, or other roadways and thus would not increase hazards due to design features of incompatible use. The Project would improve degraded roadways within Toto Ranch. Therefore, the Project would not increase hazards due to design features. There would be no impact. e. Inadequate Emergency Access. Toto Ranch is accessed by a private driveway east of the Cabrillo Highway within unincorporated San Mateo County. Implementation of the Project would not result in any changes to the Cabrillo Highway. At the northern Project boundary, Cabrillo Highway is part of the County of San Mateo Tsunami Evacuation Zone (San Mateo County GIS 2013). Access along the Cabrillo Highway corridor adjacent to the Project area would remain unchanged throughout and following Project implementation. Therefore, the implementation of the Project would not impact any routes used for emergency vehicles traveling to or nearly the Project area. There are three roadways within Toto Ranch that are proposed for upgrades through implementation of the RMP. These upgrades would improve access throughout Toto Ranch, and provide multiple routes to access the most eastern and northern portions of the Project area. IS/MND 150 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Through the improvements of these roadways, emergency access within Toto Ranch would be improved as a result of Project implementation. Throughout the implementation of the RMP on Toto Ranch, emergency access to the Project area would remain similar to existing conditions, as the site would continue to be closed to the public, and access to the lessee, employees of the lessee and Midpen staff would remain the same. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. There would be no impact. IS/MND 151 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Would the Project 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. 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? ❑ X ❑ ❑ Background In accordance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), CEQA was amended to mandate consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to determine whether a proposed Project would have impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources, because California tribes are experts in their Tribal Cultural Resources and heritage. Therefore, in compliance with AB 52, Midpen initiated consultation with tribes, and consultation is concluded when Midpen and the tribes agree on appropriate mitigation measures to mitigate and/or avoid any significant impacts. On November 21, 2018, as part of the tribal consultation process with Native American groups and individuals, Aaron Peth, a planner for Midpen, mailed Project initiation letters, including a Project map and description, to the following Native American contacts listed for San Mateo County's geographic area of jurisdiction. • Irene Zwierlein, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista • Tony Cerda, Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe • Ann Marie Sayers, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan • Charlene Nijmeh, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area • Andrew Galvan, The Ohlone Indian Tribe In summary, the Commission found no information in their files and provided the names of the five (5) tribal representatives. A letter describing the Project and asking for information or comments was sent to each representative, who was subsequently contacted with emails and phone calls. No comments or concerns had been received as of February 2018. IS/MND 152 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Discussion a. Listing in the California or Local Register of Historic Resources. There are no resources that have been listed in the California Register of Historic Resources, or in a local register of historic resources as defined in Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1(k). Also refer to Section 2.4.5, Cultural Resources. Therefore, there would be no impact. b. Impact a Significant Resource to a California Native American Tribe. AB 52 established that a substantial adverse change to a Tribal Cultural Resource would have a significant impact on the environment. Based on archival and field -based research of Toto Ranch, it is not anticipated that tribal resources would be impacted through Project implementation. However, there always remains the potential for ground -disturbing activities to expose and/or impact unknown tribal cultural resources, which could result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. This potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Cultural Resources during Construction, CR-2: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Human Remains during Construction, which are described under Section 2.4.5, Cultural Resources. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. IS/MND 153 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.19 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 storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ X ❑ b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? ❑ ❑ ❑ X c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that is has adequate capacity to serve the Project's Projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ■ ■ ■ X d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure? ■ ■ © ❑ e. Negatively impact the provision of solid waste service or impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? ❑ ❑ © ❑ f. Comply with federal, state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Existing Conditions Utilities and services are provided through a variety of resources throughout the Project area. • Water services are provided by water conveyance infrastructure within the Project area, moving water from wells, ponds and natural springs throughout Toto Ranch. The water supply for the residence and agricultural operations (e.g., troughs, water tanks) is provided through a number of springs, ponds, and wells. • Stormwater conveyance relies on natural flow from the hillsides to drainages within and bordering Toto Ranch, including a series of stock ponds throughout the Project area, and Tunitas and Dry Creeks along the northern boundary of the site. • Wastewater services to provide treatment for the Residential Lease Area are provided by a septic system. • Electricity/natural gas are supplied by PG&E. • Solid Waste/Refuse, including recyclable materials, that is generated through Project construction and demolition would be collected by Recology and transferred to the Pescadero Transfer Station on Bean Hollow Road in Pescadero, approximately seven (7) miles south of the Project area. IS/MND 154 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Discussion a. Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment or Storm Water Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas or Telecommunications Facilities. Implementation of the Project would not result in an increase in the population within Toto Ranch, nor the construction of structures that would require the extension of utilities, resulting in the need for the relocation or construction of new facilities, with respect to utilities, except water supply. As described in Section 1.5.1, the Project includes water infrastructure improvements to enhance livestock distribution and overall forage utilization, as well as extend the grazing season, which is currently affected by the lack of water during summer and fall months. Infrastructure improvements include installing a new water line and trough north of the Agricultural Lease Area and improving the Field 3 water system (spring, pump, tank, pipe, trough). These relatively small improvements are within the localized water system and would not result in the need for the relocation or construction of new facilities, as they relate to the primary water sources (e.g., no new wells), the construction of which could create adverse environmental impacts not already addressed in this analysis through evaluation of the aforementioned infrastructure improvements. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. b. Have Sufficient Water Supplies to Serve the Project Area in Normal and Dry Years. As described above, water supplies within Toto Ranch are supplied by an on -site water conveyance system that would be enhanced through implementation of the Project. The enhanced water conveyance system would improve the ability to circulate water throughout the site to increase the area within Toto Ranch that may be grazed, and improve water supply during summer and fall months. Following Project implementation, water would be available throughout the entire Project area. Wells and natural springs provide water for the Residential Lease Area. There would be no change in the amount of water used by the lessee within the Residential Lease Area. Improvements to the water conveyance infrastructure would improve the reliability of this system to provide water for the lessee year-round. The improvements to the water conveyance system throughout the Project area would increase the areas throughout Toto Ranch that are able to support grazing, as water would be available in areas that would previously have remained dry. In addition, water infrastructure improvements would improve the water reliability for the lessees of Toto Ranch. Therefore, implementation of the Project would improve water supplies throughout normal and dry years. This is considered a beneficial impact. Therefore, there would be no impact. c. Adequate Capacity for Wastewater Treatment. Implementation of the Project would not result in an increase in the population within Toto Ranch, and therefore an increase in wastewater that IS/MND 155 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 would require treatment. Therefore, the existing septic system would continue to provide wastewater collection services for Toto Ranch, and there would be no impact. d. Generate Solid Waste in Excess of State or Local Standards. Implementation of the Project would not result in a permanent increase in the generation of solid waste. However, throughout the implementation of construction activities associated with Project improvements, solid waste would be generated, including fence posts, plastic watering troughs and discarded metal water infrastructure. However, the increased amount of solid waste would be similar to that normally generated by ongoing operations and maintenance activities at Toto Ranch, and is not expected to substantially increase the volume of solid waste generated, compared to existing conditions. These materials would be collected by Recology and transferred to the Pescadero Transfer Station on Bean Hollow Road in Pescadero, consistent with current solid waste collection and disposal practices. Refuse generated would not be in excess of state or local standards, as the Pescadero Transfer Station has capacity for solid waste through 2021, when it is expected that the agreement with San Mateo County would be extended for an additional three-year term. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. e. Negatively Impact the Provision of Solid Waste Services or Impair the Attainment of Solid Waste Reduction Goals. Implementation of the Project would not result in a permanent increase in the generation of solid waste. However, solid waste would be generated, including fence posts, plastic watering troughs and discarded metal water infrastructure throughout the implementation of construction activities associated with site improvements. As described above, the amount generated would be similar to existing conditions and not constitute a substantial increase in solid waste, and no additional solid waste services would be required. Further, much of the solid waste generated are recyclable materials, and thus the Project would not impair the ability of the County to attain solid waste reduction goals. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. f. Comply with Federal, State and Local Management and Reduction Statutes and Regulations for Solid Waste. As described above, implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in the generation of solid waste, and therefore would not result in impacts on solid waste facilities. Much of the solid waste generated would be recyclable materials taken to the Pescadero Transfer Station on Bean Hollow Road in Pescadero, approximately seven (7) miles south of the Project area. Following Project area improvements, Midpen would continue to comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste disposal and recycling throughout implementation of the Project. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. IS/MND 156 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.20 Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire? ❑ ❑ X ❑ c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Existing Conditions Toto Ranch is located within a largely unpopulated area along the coastline of San Mateo County. Fire services for the area are provided by the San Mateo Division of CAL FIRE. The Project area is located in a State Responsibility Area, wherein fire severity zones have been mapped to identify the likelihood that an area may burn and risks associated with fire throughout the service area (CAL FIRE 2007). Within Toto Ranch there are areas that have been identified as both moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. The San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services and Homeland Security maintains the Countywide Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) (San Mateo County 2015). The EOP is the base plan that governs the roles and responsibilities of the County in times of emergency or disaster. The EOP assigns responsibilities to organizations and individuals for carrying out specific actions in the event of emergencies, sets forth lines of authority for how actions will be coordinated, identifies personnel, equipment and facilities to respond to emergencies, and reconciles these requirements with other jurisdictions. The northwestern portion of the Project area, where the Project meets Tunitas Creek, is in the County of San Mateo Tsunami Evacuation Zone (San Mateo County GIS 2013). There are two (2) Tsunami Shelters located approximately ten (10) miles north and south of the Project area; one is located at Half Moon Bay High School and the other is located at Pescadero High School (County of San Mateo 2015), both accessed by the Cabrillo Highway. IS/MND 157 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Discussion a. Impair Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan. Toto Ranch is accessed by a private driveway east of the Cabrillo Highway within unincorporated San Mateo County. Implementation of the Project would not result in any changes to the Cabrillo Highway. At the northern Project boundary, the Cabrillo Highway is part of the County of San Mateo Tsunami Evacuation Zone (San Mateo County GIS 2013). Access along the Cabrillo Highway corridor adjacent to the Project area would remain unchanged throughout and following Project implementation and, therefore, would not impact any routes used for emergency vehicles traveling to or nearly the Project area. There are three roadways within Toto Ranch that are proposed for upgrades through implementation of the RMP. These upgrades would improve access throughout Toto Ranch, and provide multiple routes to access the most eastern and northern portions of the Project area. Through the improvements along these roadways, emergency access within Toto Ranch would be improved as a result of Project implementation. Throughout the implementation of the RMP on Toto Ranch, emergency access to the Project area would remain similar to existing conditions, as the site would continue to be closed to the public, and access to the lessee, employees of the lessee, Midpen staff and permitted activities such as docent -led hikes continue to access the site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not impair an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. b. Exacerbate Wildfire Risks, and Expose Project Occupants to Pollutant Concentrations from Wildfire. Through implementation of the Project, improvements to the water conveyance infrastructure throughout the Project area would be improved, providing additional water management capabilities. Additional grazing that is proposed through the RMP would also reduce the overall vegetative fuel load throughout the Project area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would improve the conditions throughout the Project area to support fire suppression actions throughout Toto Ranch in the event of a wildland fire. Implementation of the Project would not result in the addition of habitable structures, or an increase in the population that reside or work within Toto Ranch. Furthermore, hazardous materials, or materials that may become hazardous when exposed to fire, would not be introduced into the Project area as the materials utilized would be similar to existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, or expose occupants within the Project area to pollutant concentrations from wildlife; this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. IS/MND 158 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 c. Require Installation or Maintenance of Infrastructure that may Exacerbate Fire Risks. As discussed above, implementation of the Project would result in upgrades to the water conveyance infrastructure throughout Toto Ranch, expanding the availability of water throughout the Project area. The proposed gazing practices through the RMP would also reduce the fuel load throughout the Project area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not require additional installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risks There would be no impact. d. Expose People or Structures to Significant Risks as a Result of Runoff, Post -Fire Slope Instability or Drainage Changes. Implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability or drainage changes as the Project area would remain largely unchanged. The Project would result in improvements in water conveyance throughout the Project area, and would expand grazing practices throughout Toto Ranch, reducing the fuel load throughout the Project area and guiding grazing practices to avoid areas of instability. Furthermore, the proposed roadway improvements through the RMP would minimize erosion throughout the Project area. Therefore, implementation would not result in additional exposure to people or structures to significant risks as a result of changes to the environment caused by wildfires. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. IS/MND 159 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ X 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)? ■ ❑ X ■ c. Have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ X ❑ a. As described in Sections 2.4.4, Biological Resources, and 2.4.5, Cultural Resources, Project construction activities have the potential to degrade wetlands and waters of the U.S. and state, habitat for CRLF and SFGS, adversely affect previously undiscovered buried cultural resources that could be important examples of California history and prehistory and adversely affect undiscovered human remains. Although the Project would impact wetlands and waters of the U.S. and state, and habitat for CRLF and SFGS, Section 2.4.4 identifies biological mitigation measures to minimize impacts to a less than significant level. Although intrusion on any previously undiscovered cultural or historic resources, or buried human remains, is not anticipated, there may be a potential likelihood to encounter given the rich history of the area. Section 2.4.5 identifies cultural resource mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to unexpected resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, these impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, and the Project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment. b. The significant cumulative impacts to which the Project would contribute are air quality and greenhouse gas/climate change from construction -related emissions. Both air quality and greenhouse gas analyses are cumulative in nature, and the analysis of potential impacts in IS/MND 160 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Section 2.4.3, Air Quality, and 2.4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, is undertaken in the context of the air quality basin and global climate change arena, respectively. The Project would not exceed BAAQMD emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants and would not increase greenhouse gas emissions over existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not result in a considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts. Traffic is a common cumulative impact. However, implementation of the Project would not result in additional vehicle trips along Cabrillo Highway, and therefore, existing use of local roadways would remain unchanged. Therefore, the Project would not result in any contribution to a significant cumulative impact. c. As discussed in the preceding Environmental Checklist, the Project would not have any significant effects. Therefore, it would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation to reduce to a less than significant were identified for air quality, biological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Those impacts with potential to adversely affect human beings include the construction -related air quality emissions and noise. As described in Sections 2.4.3, Air Quality, and 2.4.13, Noise, all potential impacts were reduced to a less than significant level. IS/MND 161 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 2.5 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures Midpen has a number of existing permits and guiding documents that have been developed to guide the current and planned land uses of the preserves within their jurisdiction. Table 8 identifies existing avoidance and minimization measures, and mitigation measures, that have been defined through these documents and that are applicable to the Project. These measures are further defined in Appendix B. These measures have been included in the impact discussions for Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Quality. The purpose of Table 8 is to provide a crosswalk to show how the existing measures offset the impacts of the Proposed Project, and also includes additional mitigation measures that have been identified for the Project to further minimize impacts, as necessary, to result in less than significant impacts. The IS/MND includes additional construction related BMPs have been included in the Project Description, and additional mitigation measures have been proposed (Cultural Resources) that are not included in Table 8, as these measures are not included in Midpen existing permits and guidance documents, and are in addition to those identified in the table. The Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) that will be developed for the Project will include the full range of measures for the Project to ensure that all avoidance and minimization measures, BMPs and mitigation measures are implemented through the Project. IS/MND 162 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation Biological Resources a. Substantial Effect through Habitat Modifications on any 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 2A. Preconstruction surveys prior to maintenance, enhancement and construction in and near creeks and streams 3H. Exclusion fencing for Federally -listed species 4A. Preconstruction special -status plant surveys 4B. Choris' popcorn flower rare plant exclusion 5A. General anadromous fish avoidance and minimization measures 5B. Enhance habitat for anadromous fish 5C. Monitor sensitive fish species 5D. Integrated pest management in and near fish habitat 6A. Compliance with federal permits for CRLF and SFGS 6B. Implement avoidance and minimization measures for ponds, creeks and streams 6C. Yearly work proposals for CRLF and SFGS enhancement 6D. Biological monitors 6E. Preconstruction meeting and construction training 6F. Stop work authority for CRLF and SFGS 6G. CRLF and SFGS preconstruction surveys 6H. Egg mass avoidance 61. Seasonal work period in ponds 6J. Agency notification of enhancement activities for CRFL and SFGS 6K. Vegetation removal by mechanized equipment at CRLF and SFGS sensitive sites 6L. Vegetation removal at ponds Potentially significant BIO-1: Pond Enlargement or Creation, when Ponds are Decommissioned BIO-2: Revegetation and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitat for CRLF and SFGS Less than significant with mitigation 6 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures identifies all the avoidance and minimizations measures that Midpen is required to implement. Therefore, the Initial Study analysis assumes these measures would be implemented. If with implementation of these measures there is still potential for a significant impact, additional mitigation has been identified in the Initial Study, as reflected in the "Mitigation" column. IS/MND 163 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation 6M. CRLF and SFGS exclusion for sediment removal with large equipment 6N. No stockpiling of vegetation 60. Vehicle restrictions 6P. No stockpiling of soil 6Q. Cease activities for CRLF and SFGS in the work area 6R. CRLF emergency salvage and recovery 6S. CRLF and SFGS Reporting Requirements 6T. Integrated pest management in CRLF and SFGS habitat 7A. SFDW Protection Preconstruction Survey 8A. Preconstruction surveys for special status bat species 8B. Tree removal associated with bats 8C. Non -tree roost exclusion associated with bats 9A. Nesting bird surveys 9B. Active nests 9C. Active nest buffers 10A. Invasive animal control 10B. Vegetation management 11A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 11C. Grazing by horses b. Adverse Effect on Riparian Habitat or 1A. Pond monitoring and annual work plan Less than N/A Less than significant Other Sensitive Natural Community 1 B. Pond berm repairs/maintenance significant Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, Regulations or by the California 1C. Pond outlet repairs/maintenance 1 D. Pond basins repairs/maintenance Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. 1 E. Pond trash cleanup Fish and Wildlife Service. 1 F. Preconstruction surveys prior to pond maintenance, enhancement and creation 1G. Implementation of pond maintenance, enhancement and creation activities IS/MND 164 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation 2A. Preconstruction surveys prior to maintenance, enhancement and construction in and near creeks and streams 2B. Culvert replacement 2C. Culvert repair/maintenance 2D. Minor culvert relocation where the road or trail is not also being relocated 2E. Removal of existing culverts or replacement with rolling dips or fords 2F. New culvert installation (non -stream crossing culverts) 2G. Ford and swale replacement, repair or maintenance (includes drain lenses and causeways) 2H. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and maintenance 21. Implementation of maintenance and enhancement activities near creeks and streams 2J. Integrated pest management associated with the use of chemicals in and near creeks and streams 3D. Trail drainage and erosion control 4B. Choris' popcorn flower rare plant exclusion 5B. Enhance habitat for anadromous fish 61. Season work period in ponds 6K. Vegetation removal by mechanized equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS sensitive sites 6L. Vegetation removal at ponds 6T. Integrated pest management in CRLF and SFGS habitat 9D. Nesting habitat removal or modification 10B. Vegetation management c. Have a substantial adverse effect on 1A. Pond monitoring and annual work plan Potentially BIO-3: Compensation for Less than significant with federally protected wetlands as defined 1 B. Pond berm repairs/maintenance significant Loss of Jurisdictional mitigation by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 10. Pond outlet repairs/maintenance Waters and/or Wetlands (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) 1 D. Pond basins repairs/maintenance 1 E. Pond trash cleanup IS/MND 165 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1 F. Preconstruction surveys prior to pond maintenance, enhancement and creation 1G. Implementation of pond maintenance, enhancement and creation activities 2A. Preconstruction surveys prior to maintenance, enhancement and construction in and near creeks and streams 2B. Culvert replacement 2C. Culvert repair/maintenance 2D. Minor culvert relocation where the road or trail is not also being relocated 2E. Removal of existing culverts or replacement with rolling dips or fords 2F. New culvert installation (non -stream crossing culverts) 2G. Ford and swale replacement, repair or maintenance (includes drain lenses and causeways) 2H. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and maintenance 21. Implementation of maintenance and enhancement activities near creeks and streams 2J. Integrated pest management associated with the use of chemicals in and near creeks and streams 3D. Trail drainage and erosion control 5B. Enhance habitat for anadromous fish 6B. Implement avoidance and minimization measures for ponds, creeks and streams 61. Seasonal work periods in ponds 6K. Vegetation removal by mechanized equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS sensitive sites 6L. Vegetation removal at ponds d. Interfere substantially with the 2H. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair Less than N/A Less than significant movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory and maintenance 21. Implementation of maintenance and enhancement activities near creeks and streams significant IS/MND 166 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 2J. Integrated pest management associated with the use of chemicals in and near creeks and streams 5A. General anadromous fish avoidance and minimization measures 5B. Enhance habitat for anadromous fish 5D. Integrated pest management in and near fish habitat 6B. Implement avoidance and minimization measures for ponds, creeks and streams 6H. Egg mass avoidance for CRLF 61. Seasonal work periods in ponds. 6K. Vegetation removal by mechanized equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS sensitive sites 6L. Vegetation removal at ponds 6T. Integrated pest management in CRLF and SFGS habitats 8B. Tree removal associated with bat roosts 18C. Non -tree roost exclusion for bats 9A. Nesting bird surveys 9B. Active nests requirements 9C. Active nest buffers 9D. Nesting habitat removal or modification 10A. Invasive animal control 10B. Vegetation management 1 1A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11 B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 11C. Grazing by horses e. Conflict with any local policies or 1 F. Preconstruction surveys prior to pond Less than N/A Less than significant ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? maintenance, enhancement and creation 2A. Preconstruction surveys prior to maintenance, enhancement and construction in and near creeks and streams significant 2H. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and maintenance IS/MND 167 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation 21. Implementation of maintenance and enhancement activities near creeks and streams 2J. Integrated pest management associated with the use of chemicals in and near creeks and streams 3B. Vegetation removal for trail maintenance 4A. Preconstruction special -status plant surveys 4B. Choris' popcorn flower rare plant exclusion 5A. General anadromous fish avoidance and minimization measures 5B. Enhance habitat for anadromous fish 5C. Monitor sensitive fish species 5D. Integrated pest management in and near fish habitat 6A. Compliance with federal permits for CRLF and SFGS 6B. Implement avoidance and minimization measures for ponds, creeks and streams 6C. Yearly work proposals for CRLF and SFGS enhancement 6D. Biological monitors 6E. Preconstruction meeting and construction training 6F. Stop work authority for CRLF and SFGS 6G. CRLF and SFGS preconstruction surveys 6H. Egg mass avoidance 61. Seasonal work period in ponds 6J. Agency notification of enhancement activities for CRFL and SFGS 6K. Vegetation removal by mechanized equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS sensitive sites 6L. Vegetation removal at ponds 6M. CRLF and SFGS exclusion for sediment removal with large equipment 6N. No stockpiling vegetation 60. Vehicle restrictions IS/MND 168 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation 6P. No stockpiling of soil 6Q. Cease activities for CRLF and SFGS in the work area 6R. CRLF emergency salvage and recovery 6S. CRLF and SFGS Reporting Requirements 6T. Integrated pest management in CRLF and SFGS habitat 7A. SFDW protection preconstruction surveys 8A. Preconstruction surveys for special status bat species 8B. Tree removal 8C. Non -tree roost exclusion 9A. Nesting bird surveys 9B. Active nests 9C. Active nest buffers 9D. Nesting habitat removal or modification 10A. Invasive animal control 10B. Vegetation management 11A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 110. Grazing by horses _ f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, N/A No impact N/A No impact Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Geology and Soils b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Hvdrolo and Water Qualit 21. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and maintenance 3D. Trail drainage and erosion control 6P. No stockpiling of soil 11A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 110. Grazing by horses IS/MND 169 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation a. Violate any water quality standards or 21. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and Less than N/A Less than significant waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? maintenance 3D. Trail drainage and erosion control 6P. No stockpiling of soil significant 1 1A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11 B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 11C. Grazing by horses c. Substantially alter the existing 21. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and Less than N/A Less than significant 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 result in erosion or changes in surface flows? maintenance 3D. Trail drainage and erosion control 6P. No stockpiling of soil 1 1A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11 B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 11 C. Grazing by horses significant IS/MND 170 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Section 3 List of Preparers 3.1 Lead Agency Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California 94022-1404 Aaron Peth — Planner III Jane Mark — Planning Manager Coty Sifuentes-Winter — Senior Resource Management Specialist 3.2 Consultants Harris & Associates 450 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 103 Salinas, California 93901 Kate Giberson — Project Director Wendy Young — Project Manager Sharon Toland — Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas, Noise Shannon Bane — Biological Resources, Natural Resources Michelle Stiefel — Other Environmental Topics Albion Environmental 1414 Soquel Avenue, Suite 205 Santa Cruz, California 95062 Doug Ross — Cultural Resources IS/MND 171 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND 172 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Section 4 References ABAG. Resilience Program. Landslide GIS Maps. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr =existingLndsld. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. 2018. ArcGIS. Last updated August 21. https://services3 .arcgis.com/i2dkYWmb4wHvYPda/arcgis/rest/services/aquist priolo_zones/FeatureServer. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. "Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status." Page last updated January 5, 2017. Accessed December 5, 2018. http://www .baagmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017b. "Spare the Air Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. Adopted April 19. http://www. baagmd. gov/—/media/file s/planning-and-re search/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment- a -proposed-final-cap-vol-l-pdf.pdf?la=en. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. California Air Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010a. California Air Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010b. 2010 Clean Air Plan, Final Clean Air Plan — Volume II. September 15. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines — Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. December. Beal, F. E. L. 1907. Birds of California in relation to the fruit industry, part 1. U.S. Dept. Agri. Biol. Surv. Bull. 30. Becker, G.S. and I.J. Reining. 2008. Steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) resources south of the Golden Gate, California. Cartography by D.A. Asbury. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Oakland, CA. Bent, A. C. 1938. Life histories of North American birds of prey. Part 2. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 170. 482pp. Bent, A. C. 1942. Life histories of North American flycatchers, larks, swallows, and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 179. 555pp. Bent, A. C. (0. L. Austin, Jr., ed.). 1968. Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies. 3 Parts. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 237. 1889pp.Brown, L. R., P. B. Moyle, and R. M. Yoshiyama. 1994. Historical decline and current status of coho salmon in California. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California, Davis. Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider 1980. Peterson field guide to mammals. Houghton Mifflin Company, 289pp. IS/MND 173 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Caltrans. 2018. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, San Mateo County. www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/sc enic_highways/. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2016. San Mateo County Important Farmlands Map. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/smt 16.pdf. California Depai linent of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Conservation Program Support. 2014. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land Map. ftp: //ftp. consrv. c a. gov/pub/d1rp/FMMP/pdf/2016/smt16.pdf. California Department of Conservation. 2018. California Geological Survey. "Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone." California Department of Conservation. 2015. California Geological Survey Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs /informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc. California Department of Fish and Game. 2004. Recovery Strategy for California Coho salmon. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). May 16, 2018 (revised). STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT NOTIFICATION NO. 1600-2012-0444-R3, Various Creeks in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, SYSTEM WIDE ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. CDFW Regional Office, Napa, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. California Natural Diversity Database. Available online at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data#43018407-rarefied-5. Accessed October 1, 2018. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Life history accounts and range maps. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. Accessed June 10, 2019. California Department of Water Resources. 2014. San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. San Gregorio Valley Groundwater Basin, Bulletin 118. http ://www. smsustainability. org/downlo ad/energy-water/groundwater/2-24.pdf. CAL FIRE. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones M SRA. http://frap.fire.ca.gov /webdata/maps/san_mateo/fhszs_map.41.pdf. CAL FIRE. 2009. San Mateo County Very Hugh Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning smcgov.org/files/documents/files/Fire%o20Haz and%20Severity%20Zones.pdf. California Native Plant Society. 2018. Online Manual of California Vegetation. Available at: http://vegetation.cnps.org/ I S/M N D 174 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Available online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed: December 21, 2018. California Natural Diversity Database. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Information and Observation System. Accessed February 26, 2019. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2011. San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, September 8. http://ccag.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2014/07/CBPP_Main-Report_Sept2011 _FINAL.pdf. County of San Mateo. 2014. Building Regulations. Adopted January. https://planning.smcgov .org/site s/planning. smcgov.org/files/SMCBuilding%20Regulations%20 (2014) .pdf. County of San Mateo. 2012. FEMA Flood Zone. https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning .smcgov.org/files/documents/files/fema_flood.pdf. County of San Mateo. 1986. General Plan, approved November 18. https://planning.smcgov .org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/SMC-GP%201986.pdf. County of San Mateo. 2005 Planning and Building. Adopted Maps. https://planning smcgov.org /adopted -maps. County of San Mateo. 2013. Planning and Building Department. Requirements for Erosion and Sediment Control. https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning smcgov.org/files /documents/files/Erosion-Control-Guidelines.pdf. County of San Mateo. 2015. San Mateo County Emergency Operation Plan. https://hsd .smcsheriff.com/sites/default/files/downloadables/1 %020- %o20Emergency%o20Operations%20Plan.pdf. County of San Mateo. 2018a. San Mateo County Zoning. https://planning.smcgov.org/sites /planning.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/smc_zoning.pdf. County of San Mateo. 2018b. Zoning Regulations, May 18. https://planning.smcgov.org /sites/planning smcgov.org/files/SMC_Zoning_Regulations.pdf. DeSante, D. F., Ruhlen, E. D., and Rosenberg, D. K. 2004. Density and abundance of Burrowing Owls in the agricultural matrix of the Imperial Valley, California. Studies Avian Biol. 27:116-119. Earhart, C. M., and N. K. Johnson. 1970. Size dimorphism and food habits of North American owls. Condor 72:251-264. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. INLAND STRANDED OIL HABITAT FACT SHEET FOR RESPONSE: OPEN WATER. Available at: http://www.rrt5.org/Documents/Habitat/OW_HabitatFactSheets.pdf IS/MND 175 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: How Wetlands are Defined and Identified. Accessed at: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/section-404-clean- water-act-how-wetlands-are-defined-and-identified. Foster, M. L. 1977. Status of the Salt Marsh Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) in the San Francisco Bay Area, California, 1975-1976. Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, Sacramento. Available at www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/info/bm intro.shtml. Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Soc. 408pp. Gervais, J. A., Rosenberg, D. K., Fry, D. M., Trulio, L., and Sturm, K. K. 2000. Burrowing Owls and agricultural pesticides: Evaluation of residues and risks for three populations in California. Environ. Toxicol. and Chem. 19:337-343. Green, G. A., and Anthony, R. G. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relationships of Burrowing Owls in the Columbia basin, Oregon. Condor 91:347-354. Green, G. A., Fitzner, R. E., Anthony, R. G., and Rogers, L. E. 1993. Comparative diets of Burrowing Owls in Oregon and Washington. Northwest Sci. 67:88-93. Griffiths, J., and F. Villablanca. 2013. Management of Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) overwintering habitat: recommendations based on patterns of tree use. Monarch Alert, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, prepared for Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Grinnell, J. 1915. A distributional list of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avifauna 11 Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, and J. M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur -bearing mammals of California. 2 Vols. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 777pp. Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avifauna No. 27. 608pp. Guzy, M. J., and Ritchison, G. 1999. Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.), no. 448. Birds N. Am., Philadelphia. Hall, E.R. 1981. Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, 1181 pp. Haug, E. A., Millsap, B. A., and Martell, M. S. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.), no. 61. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia. Hickman, K. 2017. Results from Camera Trap Wildlife Studies in Santa Cruz Mountains. Prepared for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. San Carlos, CA. Hobson, K., Perrine, P., Roberts, E. B., Foster, M. L., and Woodin, P. 1986. A breeding season survey of Salt Marsh Yellowthroats Geothlypis trichas sinuosa in the San Francisco Bay region. San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory report to U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv., Contract 84-57. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 156pp. IS/MND 176 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Holt, D. W. 1992. Notes on short -eared owl (Asio flammeus) nest sites, reproduction and territory size in coastal Massachusetts. Can. Field -Nat. 106: 352-356. Holt, D. W., and S. M. Leasure. 1996. Short -eared owl (Asio flammeus). The birds of North America, No. 62 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, PA, Am. Ornithol. Union, Washington DC. Johnsgard, P. A. 1983. The hummingbirds of North America. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington DC. 303pp. Kelly, P. A. 1990. Population ecology and social organization of dusky -footed woodrats, Neotoma fuscipes. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley, 191 pp. Linsdale, J. M., and L. P. Tevis, Jr. 1951. The dusky -footed wood rat. Univ. California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 664 pp. Lindzey, F. G. 1978. Movement patterns of badgers in northwestern Utah. J. Wildl. Manage. 42:418-422. Long, C. A. 1973. Taxidea taxus. Mammal. Species. No. 26. 4pp. MacWhirter, R. B., and Bildstein, K. L. 1996. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.), no. 210. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia. McCaskie, G., P. De Benedictis, R. Erickson, and J. Morlan. 1979. Birds of northern California, an annotated field list. 2nd ed. Golden Gate Audubon Soc., Berkeley. 84pp. Messick, J. P., and M. G. Hornocker. 1981. Ecology of the badger in southwestern Idaho. Wildl. Monogr. No.76. 53pp. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. No date. Best Management Practices for Avoiding and Minimizing Impacts to Bat Species. Los Altos, CA. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 1999. BASIC POLICY OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. Los Altos, CA. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2002a. San Mateo Coastal Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available at: coast-eir@openspace.org. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2002b. SERVICE PLAN FOR THE SAN MATEO COASTAL ANNEXATION AREA. Los Altos, CA. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2007. Grazing Management. Los Altos, CA. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2014a. Resource Management Policies. Los Altos, CA. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2014b. Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual. Prepared by May & Associates, Inc., and Ascent Environmental, Inc. Los Altos, CA. IS/MND 177 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2014c. Integrated Pest Management Program Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Ascent Environmental, Inc. Los Altos, CA. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2014d (revised). REGULATIONS FOR USE OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LANDS. Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No. 14-01, February 12, 2014. Los Altos, CA. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2019. Historic Properties Survey Report and Finding of No Adverse Effect from Proposed Improvements to Starr Hill Road (P-41-002689), Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, California. Prepared for the Midpeninsula Open Space District, Los Altos, CA. Prepared by Mark Hylkema, MA, RPA Archaeologist, Past Lifeways Archaeological Studies, Sunnyvale, CA. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Preserve. 2019. El Corte De Madera Creek Preserve. https://www.openspace.org/preserves/el-corte-de-madera-creek.Moore, Walter. 2017. POST: From Ravaged Beach to Public Park, November 16. https://openspacetrust.org/blog/tunitas-creek-beach/. Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California, University of California Press. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan. National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, Santa Rosa, California. Noss, R. F., LaRoe, E. T., III, and Scott, J. M. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Rep. 28, Natl. Biol. Surv., Dept. Interior, Washington, DC. Plumpton, D. L., and Lutz, R. S. 1993. Prey selection and food habits of Burrowing Owls in Colorado. Great Basin Nat. 53:299-304. Preston, Mel. 2016. Results of Rangeland Monitoring Points on Toto Ranch. Point Blue Conservation. Petaluma, CA. Quinn, T. P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. American. Fisheries Society and University of Washington Press. Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. 2010. Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certifications for Routine Maintenance Activities for Mid -Peninsula Open Space District, Order No. R2-2010-0083. CIWQS Place ID: 753396 (SMP). Oakland, CA. Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. Calif. Dep. Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildl. Manage. Admin. Rep. No. 78-1. 54pp. Ronan, N. A. 2002. Habitat selection, reproductive success, and site fidelity of Burrowing Owls in a grassland ecosystem. M.S. thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. Rosenberg, D. K., and Haley, K. L. 2004. The ecology of Burrowing Owls in the agroecosystem of the Imperial Valley, California. Studies Avian Biol. 27:120-135. IS/MND 178 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 San Mateo County. 2016. Hazard Mitigation Plan, July. https://planning.smcgov.org/sites /planning. smcgov.org/files/documents/files/San%20Mateo%2OHMP%20- %20Volume%o201%20-%20Fina1%20APA.pdf. San Mateo County GIS. 2016. Coastal Zone. https://data-smcmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets /01914b56a4e94e0a92063d08b8fa4b0a_15?geometry=-122.717%2C37.32%2C- 122.318%o2C37.51. San Mateo County GIS. 2013. Tsunami Evacuation Zone. https://www.arcgis.com/home /item.html?id=8fl 501 c 1 a6d44d1 ba23647c31 b4c9b 1 d. San Mateo County Municipal Code. Chapter 7.30: Noise Regulations. https://www.cityofsanmateo .org/DocumentCenterNiew/1888/ORDINANCE-NO-2004---16?bidId=. San Mateo County Important Farmlands Map. 2016. California Department of Conservation. Division of Land Resource Protection. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/smt 16.pdf. Schweizer, T., and Chesemore, D. L. 1996. Recent and historical raptor populations in Fresno, Madera, and Merced counties, California. Trans. W. Section Wildl. Soc. 32:18-22. Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Shuford, W. D., and Metropulos P. J. 1996. The Glass Mountain breeding bird atlas Project: Preliminary results, 1991 to 1995. Report to Inyo Natl. Forest. Available from PRBO Conserv. Science, 3820 Cypress Dr., #11, Petaluma, CA 94954. Spautz, H. 1999. Common Yellowthroat brood parasitism and nest success vary with host density and site characteristics. Studies Avian Biol. 18:218-228. Superior Court of California. 2007. Grand Jury. County of San Mateo, Hall of Justice. Summary of Tsunami Alert and Evacuation on the San Mateo County Coast. https://www. sanmateocourt. org/documents/grand jury/2006/TsunamiReportFinal.pdf. Thompson, C. D., and Anderson, S. H. 1988. Foraging behavior and food habits of Burrowing Owls in Wyoming. Prairie Nat. 20:23-28. Todd, L. D., and Skilnick, J. 2002. Large clutch size of a Burrowing Owl, Athene cunicularia, found in Saskatchewan. Can. Field -Nat. 116:307-308. United States Depai tiuent of Agriculture. 1961. Soil Survey of San Mateo Area California. https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/california/CA637/0/sanmateo.pdf. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Recovery plan for the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). Portland Oregon. (No electronic version is available) IS/MND 179 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016a. Intra-Service Biological Opinion on the issuance of a 10(a)1(A) permit to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the San Francisco Garter Snake and California Red -Legged Frog Habitat Enhancement Projects at their Open Space Preserves in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, California. 08ESMF00-2010-F-0044-2. Sacramento, CA. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016b. NATIVE ENDANGERED & THREATENED SP. RECOVERY ENDANGERED & THREATENED WILDLIFE, Permit Number: TE225974-2. Issued to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Available online at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed: December 1, 2018. Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammalian species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game (pp. 45-46). Williams, D.F., J. Verner, H.F. Sakai, and J.R. Waters. 1992. General biology of major prey species of the California spotted owl. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep., PSW-GTR- 133:207-221. York, M., Rosenberg, D. K., and Sturm, K. K. 2002. Diet and food -niche breadth of Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia) in the Imperial Valley, California. W. North Am. Nat. 62:280-287. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I -III. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. IS/MND 180 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Appendix A. Rangeland Management Plan IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Toto Ranch Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve PREPARED FOR: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 (650) 691-1200 PREPARED BY: Clayton Koopmann, California Certified Rangeland Manager (CRM) #M-100 Koopmann Rangeland Consulting March 2018 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos CA 94022 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Attachment 8 CONTENTS I. Property Summary Information Easement Summary Information Page 3 II. Executive Summary Introduction and Background Page 4 III. Purpose of Rangeland Management Plan Introduction and Background Page 6 IV. Goals & Objectives of RMP Goals and Objectives Page 6 V. Existing Resources and Infrastructure Land Use Information Page 10 Improvements Page 12 Soil Description Page 13 Vegetation Descriptions Page 18 Water Sources Page 21 Wildlife Page 23 Existing Agricultural Infrastructure Page 24 Rangeland Condition Page 29 VI. Capacity for Conducting Agricultural Uses Grazing Capacity Estimate Page 31 Dairy Capacity Page 33 Additional Livestock, Equine, and Poultry Capacity Page 33 Field Crop Capacity Page 34 11 Page Rangeland Management Plan -Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 VII. Management Recommendations & BMPs Rangeland Livestock Operations Page 35 Pathogen Reduction & Risk Management Page 40 Special Status Species Management Page 41 Invasive Plant Control Page 44 Additional Small Livestock Production Page 46 VIII. Improvements & Maintenance Recommendations Fence Repair and Installation Page 46 Road Repairs and Maintenance Page 47 Water Infrastructure Improvements Page 47 Vegetation Management Page 47 IX. Recommended Monitoring Protocols Monitoring Page 50 References References Page 55 Certification CRM (Plan Preparer) Certification Page 56 Attachments: Attachment - A Stock Photos of Toto Ranch, 2017 Attachment - B Guidelines for RDM Monitoring, UC ANR Attachment - C Vegetation Composition Species List (Observed) Attachment - D CRLF Management Recommendations for Toto Ranch 21 Page Rangeland Management Plan -Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 I. PROPERTY SUMMARY INFORMATION: Owner(s): Contact Person: Phone Number: Property Address: 20800 Cabrillo Highway S. Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Natural Resources Department (650) 691-1200 Mailing Address: 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Date of Property Acquisition: November 30, 2012 Conservation Easement: 2007 Easement Holder: Coastside Land Trust; Reassigned to Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) upon acquisition by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) in 2012. Assessor's Parcel # And Acreage: 081-060-101; 081-060-100; 081-060-110; 081-060-120 / 952.49 acres Major watershed: Tunitas Creek Type of land use: Livestock grazing/Residential Zoning: Location Description: PAD, Planned Agricultural District Toto Ranch is located on the east side of Highway 1 in unincorporated San Mateo County, approximately 9 miles south of Half Moon Bay and 1 mile north of the town of San Gregorio. Toto Ranch is adjacent to State Highway 1 and is bordered to the north by Tunitas Creek. Private grazed rangelands are present to the south and east of Toto Ranch. Toto Ranch is accessed via a paved/gravel driveway off Highway 1. 31 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 acumen II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Rangeland Management Plan (RMP) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & HISTORY: The Toto Ranch property (Ranch) is located within the San Mateo County Coastside Protection Area in unincorporated San Mateo County approximately 9 miles south of the town of Half Moon Bay, California (Exhibit -A). The Ranch is comprised of four (4) assessor's parcel numbers totaling 952.49 acres located to the east of and adjacent to State Highway 1 and bordered to the north by Tunitas Creek and Dry Creek. The Ranch is north-northwest facing and topography primarily ranges from gently rolling to moderately steep slopes with two steep canyons that run south - north into the Tunitas Creek stream corridor. The level to gently rolling areas of the Ranch support annual grasslands and coastal scrub habitat with heavy coyote brush encroachment. The steeper canyon areas are comprised of dense brush and riparian corridors. Eucalyptus trees and Monterey Cyprus are present in the farmyard area as well as a large, dense, eucalyptus stand east of the farmstead. Elevation ranges from 20 feet near Tunitas Creek in the northwest corner to 885 feet on the ridge top along the south border. Historically the Ranch was used for production agriculture, with active row crop farming on the swales and ridge tops during the mid -1900's. Presently the Ranch is used primarily for cattle grazing. The existing tenant resides on the property and grazes beef cattle year round on the grassland portion of the Ranch. In addition to cattle grazing, the tenant raises a variety of domestic livestock including horses, chickens, pigs, goats, sheep, alpacas, and milk cows in the farmstead area located near the center of the property. Livestock infrastructure includes adequate perimeter fence, livestock water troughs, a functional corral/processing facility, and "cow tight" interior pasture fencing. Water troughs around the farmstead area and front pastures are fed via a windmill powered well and residential water is provided via a natural spring just south of the farmstead. Two perennial stockponds, multiple springs, and ten (10) seasonal ponds/catchments are located throughout the Ranch providing water for livestock and valuable habitat for wildlife. The Ranch drains south to north into Dry Creek and Tunitas Creek, totaling approximately 9,000 feet of perennial stream frontage. Tunitas Creek is a direct tributary to the Pacific Ocean. OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT GOALS: Toto Ranch was acquired by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) in 2012 with an agricultural conservation easement (Easement) in place covering the entire property. Midpen's conservation grazing goals are to manage District land utilizing livestock grazing that is protective of natural resources and compatible with public access; to maintain and enhance the diversity of native plant and animal communities; manage vegetation fuel for fire protection; help sustain the local agricultural economy, and preserve and foster appreciation for the region's rural agricultural heritage. In order to achieve the goals of the conservation grazing program, this 41 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 acumen Rangeland Management Plan (RMP) will provide a framework around which resource managers, land managers, and grazing tenants can make rangeland management decisions on the Ranch with adaptive management changes. As stipulated in this RMP, conservation management practices are to be implemented by Midpen and the grazing lessee for all grazing areas of the Ranch, and applied specifically to livestock grazing operations and rangeland management. Conservation management practices include but are not limited to; maintenance and construction of livestock water developments (including onsite ponds), livestock fencing and corrals, ranch roads, and vegetation management to protect and enhance habitat for wildlife, native flora, and water quality and fire protection. Shrubland and forest areas that are not suitable for livestock grazing provide valuable wildlife habitat and should be managed to protect and enhance habitat value and connectivity for wildlife migration. MANAGEMENT RECOMENDATIONS & RESPONSIBILITIES: The Ranch should be operated by one lessee with a multi -year grazing lease. Conservation grazing using cattle should continue on rangeland portions of the Ranch outside of the farmstead area. Cattle loading/off-loading and processing should occur in the corral located within the farmstead area. All domestic livestock production including horses, sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, turkeys, etc. should be confined to the farmstead area. The Ranch should be grazed year round, dependent upon available forage and livestock water, with cattle rotated between the five (5) existing pastures. If available forage and/or stock water is not adequate to support grazing livestock, cattle should temporarily be removed from the Ranch or grazing restricted to seasonal use. Water use shall be prioritized for cattle grazing the rangeland pastures under the conservation grazing program with secondary water use applied to domestic livestock within the farmstead area. The estimated stocking rate for an average forage production year is 632.0 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) or 53 animal units year round, but would significantly increase with a reduction in coyote brush in the grasslands. Stocking rates for the Ranch will vary annually based on available forage and water and should be adjusted accordingly to accommodate available resources. The monitoring program for grazed Midpen land must ensure that specified rangeland uses are in compliance with the applicable land use regulations and the land stewardship goals, objectives, and implementing guidelines. Midpen staff will use rangeland/habitat health checklists and photo point monitoring forms to monitor grasslands annually in the fall prior to rainfall. 51 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 III. Purpose of Rangeland Management Plan The purpose of this RMP is to provide a framework for resource managers, land managers, and grazing tenants to make rangeland management decisions on the Ranch resulting in adaptive management changes to grazing practices, as needed (e.g. stocking rate reduction due to drought). The RMP addresses appropriate rangeland management practices for soil and water conservation, erosion control, pest management, nutrient management, water quality, and habitat protection on the Ranch. This RMP should be reviewed at least every 10 years, or sooner, and updated in the event of significant changes in land use or management practices, or a change in ownership. An updated RMP may expand the specific plan for the conduct of commercial agricultural uses to include activities that are not currently being conducted on the Toto Ranch, but that are consistent with the Easement and resource management policies of Midpen. IV. Goals and Objectives of RMP The goals and objectives of the Rangeland Management Plan are to: A. Describe appropriate historic, current, and potential future agricultural uses. B. Inventory existing agricultural resources, including soils, water sources, grassland vegetation, forage quality and production, croplands, and infrastructure. C. Determine capacity for conducting viable agricultural uses. D. Establish provisions for minimizing erosion and transport of potential pollutants into creeks. E. Provide a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for climate related impacts, grazing standards, invasive species management, water resources and conservation. F. Provide specific guidance for the conduct of agricultural uses that complies with the restrictions contained in the Easement. The plan will include, as appropriate, Animal Unit Equivalents (AUE), ranch forage production estimates, available forage, crop production estimates, and capacity for any other agricultural uses described in the RMP. The Coastal Annexation Area Mission Statement of Midpen is [11: 61 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 "To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. The District will accomplish this mission as a cooperative endeavor with public agencies, non-profit organizations, and individuals with similar goals." In the spirit of the Mission Statement, in September 2006 Midpen formulated Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures for potential areas of grazing land within the District GOAL: Manage District land with livestock grazing that is compatible with public access, to maintain and enhance the diversity of native plant and animal communities, manage vegetation fuel for fire protection, sustain the local agricultural economy, and preserve and foster appreciation for the region's rural agricultural heritage. GRAZING MANAGEMENT POLICIES: Policy GM -1: Policy GM -2: Policy GM -3: Policy GM -4: Policy GM -5: Policy GM -6: Policy GM -7: Policy GM -8: Ensure that grazing is compatible with and supports wildlife and wildlife habitats. Provide necessary infrastructure to support and improve grazing management where appropriate. Monitor environmental response to grazing on District lands. Utilize different livestock species to accomplish vegetation management objectives. Preserve and foster existing and potential grazing operations to help sustain the local agricultural economy. Provide information to the public about the region's rural agricultural heritage. Provide public access in a manner that minimizes impacts on the grazing operation. Grazing operations on District lands in the Coastside Protection Area will be managed in accordance with the policies established in the Service Plan for the San Mateo County Coastal Annexation Area. 7IPage Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 81 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 EXHIBIT — A PURISIMA CREE REDWO ODS OS' �:-.. 'U N ITAS f'tEEK I• + i i --- p DE . CREEK / O ti r` ( 1, y .. „ ,f, EL CORT ' MADER s OS i ? '1f ' f`' • I. -( ,. SanFran cistoklond :4 Daly i• teca:� y" ` rte, - ..+; \;idle -0 ?r' t>. r' q WINDY ILL OSP °4e'' . - ... • ARLISSIAN��°° RIDGE OSP 1,- , s, „,&":„.,,,: ,1.„'s, „,&":„.,,,: ,1.„'� L, City sv n a Hayward a 5. Frem ont awab - z,y MaPam san Josue Ar ea of `- `-, Detail .1110 • •-` f -- 1 1 j +' i r/ 1 + -� �, i Oj, rn r _, ' E '' MONTE LDO OSP SKYLINE RIDGE OSP • lif J ;I .. - } _.i - LA HONDA CREEK OSP • + _ �: - ' _ r _'ET" • x ' - 1l --- Toto Ranch Tuniias Creek COP ,. i w- ti l r • c `'' —_ 1 f @ -, .- t.. � a y , ti ( f •• �, J Toto Ranch - Re gional Location Map MROSD Pre se rve s 'Wate rshed Lan Tuf.s O ther Protec ted. Lauds Land Trust Priv ate Pro perty Other Public Agenc y Ranc h Mile s Midp eninsula t pen - - R egional Space DisBD {MROSD) August 2011 7 •. Ry .e:, OPEN 0' � 2 , SPACE Walk alk lila:Di st abst absetms+r la usa lha MO e._..: -: :..:. .,.. ,9 fa cat G Ci : al—mamai. .:: :� nryM, Ca m -ma n* a y[:.ph tam,. c' sa caranal c Mam as. Midpeninsu[a . Regi onal Op en Space District (MROSD)' August 2017 Attachment 8 V. Existing Resources and Infrastructure: Agricultural resources include elements necessary to continue agricultural uses on the Toto Ranch. These include appropriate soils, sufficient water, adequate forage, and supporting infrastructure. These agricultural resources are described below to establish the fact that the Toto Ranch is capable, at a minimum, of sustaining the current agricultural uses and that it has the potential to sustain additional agricultural uses supported by the agricultural resources. LAND USE INFORMATION HISTORIC LAND USE: The property was originally owned by Alexander Gordon, a State assembly member, who in 1872 built Gordon's Chute near the mouth of Tunitas Creek, an ill-fated ramp for sliding farm goods from the top of the cliffs to ships anchored in the rolling surf. Gordon's Chute was blown away in a heavy storm in 1885 [2]. The Machado family, originally from Portugal, settled the property in the late 1800s, and ranched on the property for close to 100 years. The property was historically grazed with Holstein dairy cows and many of the hillsides and ridgetops were dryland farmed with hay and oats [2]. The Scutchfield family acquired the Ranch in the late 1970s and cattle grazing continued while farming operations ceased [3]. In 2008, POST purchased the property from the Scutchfield family. Midpen purchased the property from POST in 2012 and continued grazing operations with the existing residential/grazing tenant, Erik and Doniga Markegard. The property has been continuously grazed for over 120 years. CURRENT LAND USE: The Markegard family leases the property and resides on the Ranch (separate residential lease). The Ranch is currently used primarily for grass-fed beef cattle production on the productive and accessible grasslands. The tenant also produces a number of other agricultural commodities including pasture pork, chickens, eggs, goats, lambs, and turkeys that are marketed through a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) purchasing program [4]. A small number of dairy cows are maintained for milk production as part of a cooperative Herd Share arrangement. The tenant hosts agricultural workshops and field days on the Ranch throughout the year. In addition to cattle, a number of horses and llamas/alpacas/emus are kept on the property and currently graze the grasslands outside of the farmstead area. Current land uses on the ranch include: Livestock grazing (Beef Cattle) - Approximately 941 acres Farmstead Area —Approximately 11.3 acres (House, barns, corrals, and flight pens) 101 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 SURROUNDING LAND USE: The surrounding rural landscape is dominated by established ranches used primarily for beef cattle production and row crop production. The region has undergone a recent increase in poultry, grass-fed meat, and egg production as well as farmstead creamery products. The highly productive flats in the region, where farmable, are ideal for certain vegetable crops, hay, and cut flower production. The adjacent properties to the east and south of Toto Ranch are primarily grazed rangeland with associated residential/farm buildings. The land that borders the Ranch to the north includes a number of small residential lots and small farm fields in addition to grazed rangelands. State Highway -1 and the Pacific Ocean border the Ranch to the west. In a regional context, for San Mateo County, agricultural production continues to provide significant total gross revenue value of $135,440,500 annually [5]. According to the San Mateo County Crop Report, livestock ranchers struggled with drought over the past several years resulting in an estimated decline of 22 percent in stocking rates; however, livestock numbers recovered well through 2016 posting a 14 percent increase over 2015. Figure -1: Looking south over the Toto Ranch. Highway -1 and the Pacific Ocean to the right with surrounding rangelands to the south and east of the Ranch. Several small residential parcels neighbor Toto Ranch, located along the north side of Tunitas Creek. Note the heavily wooded, steep Dry Creek and Tunitas Creek riparian corridors (bottom of photo) that comprises much of the northern border of the Ranch. Photo Credit — POST. 111 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment ti IMPROVEMENTS BUILDINGS: The Ranch headquarters is located at 20800 Cabrillo Highway South and is accessed directly off Cabrillo Highway South (Highway 1) via a % mile long paved/gravel driveway. All structures on the Ranch are located within residential lease area (Exhibit -C). The tenants currently reside in a recently improved 2,620 sf. ranch house. Other buildings within the farmstead area include a modern 4,390 sf. metal -sided barn, a wooden barn, and several small outbuildings and sheds [21. The farmstead location is visible from Highway -1 and portions of Tunitas Creek Road. Improvements within the main farmstead area include: ■ 2,620 ft2 residence (renovated in 2012) — Good condition ■ 4,390 ft2 metal -sided barn with utilities — Excellent condition ■ 1,325 ft2 Hay Barn — Fair condition with damage to roof ELECTRICITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS: Electricity is provided to the Ranch headquarters by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) via utility poles that cross the ranch, stemming from a main line on Tunitas Creek Road. Municipal water is not available on the Ranch. Figure -2: Aerial view of the farmstead area and associated buildings including hay barn (bottom right), residence (center), metal -sided shop/barn (top left) and the livestock corral (top center). 121 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 EXHIBIT -C Toto Ranch - Farmstead Area Midpeninsulo Regional Open Space District IMR©SD, August 2017 Residenti¢I Leese Bnunctory 0 mot, 0 150 OPEN SPACE 3O Mee the Dein.se,.teelee N. heel mdo7Ldged de., beeede.do noeepeeeni olgd env, eml env meed, a ggAnc Se.tm. elgeetertytr Games SOIL DESCRIPTION The Toto Ranch is comprised of fourteen (14) soil series types (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1985) identified on the soils map produced by Midpen (Exhibit -D). Soil composition on the property varies delineated by slope, aspect, and elevation. The majority of the ranch (49 percent) is comprised of Tierra loam/Tierra clay loam in addition to Colma loam (27 percent). Gazos loam and Lobitos loam soils are found primarily within the riparian corridors and steep brush covered slopes above the riparian corridors on the Ranch. The remaining soils are present in a very limited capacity, primarily located within the Tunitas Creek riparian corridor along the extreme northern property boundary. Colma and Tunitas loams comprise the majority of the upland grassland and coastal scrub habitat areas suitable for livestock grazing on the Ranch. Steep, densely vegetated riparian corridors and canyons provide little palatable forage for grazing livestock, but can provide shaded areas for loafing, particularly on the fringe areas adjacent to the grazeable grassland and coastal scrub habitats. 131 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 inches to Attachment Table -1: Delineation of soil types per acre and percent on the Toto Ranch. 8 SOIL SURVEY DATA - TOTO RANCH, SAN MATED COUNTY, CA Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in ADI Percent of ADI CIC:2 Colma loans, sloping, eroded 27.6 2.9 CID2 Colma loam, moderately steep, eroded 115.9 12.2 CIE2 Colma loam, steep, eroded 61.1 6.4 C:IF2 Colma loam, very steep, eroded 23.0 2.4 CmF3 Colma sandy loam, steep and very steep, severely eroded 20.7 2.2 GbF2 Gazos loam, very steep, eroded 58.5 6.1 GsE2 Gazos and Lobitos stony Ioams, steep, eroded 1.9 0.2 GsF2 Gazos and Lobitos stony loams, very steep, eroded 21.0 2.1 LIE2 Lobitos loam, steep, eroded 11.8 1.2 LIF2 Lobitos loam, very steep, eroded 80.7 8.5 Ma Mixed alluvial land 12.5 1.3 Rb Rough broken land 45.7 4.8 5k3 soquel loam, gently sloping 0.6 0.1 Ta Terrace escarpments 0.6 0.1 TcD2 Tierra clay loam, moderately steep, er ced 7.8 0.8 TeC:2 Tierra loam, sloping, eroded 7.8 0.8 TeD2 Tierra loam, moderately steep, erc•ced 19.0 2.0 TeE2 Tierra loam, steep, eroded 256.2 26.9 TeE3 Tierra loam, steep, severely eroded 175.9 18.5 TxB Tuniitas loam, gently sloping 4.5 4.7 WmD2 Watsonville loam, moderately steep, eroded 0.9 0.1 WmE3 Watsonville loam, moderately steep and steep severely eroded 2.7 2.8 Totals for Area of Interest IA01) 952.3 itoo.o% The Colma and Colma loam soils series consists of deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathering from softly consolidated or weakly consolidated marine sediments. Colma soils are on the foothills and have slopes of 9 to 75 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 27 161. Used mainly for range and watershed lands, small areas have been cleared and planted hay/silage. Where not farmed, typical vegetation composition consists of coyote brush, Lupine, and poison oak, with an understory of annual grasses and forbs with a few perennial grasses [6]. Colma soils are well drained with medium to rapid runoff, suitable for year-round use by grazing livestock without impacting soil stability or creating soil compaction provided prescribed levels of forage are left on the ground. 141 Page Rangeland Management Plan - Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 The Gazos loam soil series consists of moderately deep to bedrock, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from sandstone and shale. Gazos soils are on hills and have slopes of 9 to 75 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 22 inches [61. Used mostly for livestock grazing, a few areas have been cultivated for growing small grains and hay. Where not cultivated, vegetation primarily consists of annual grasses and forbs with brush and some oak trees [61. Gazos loam soils are well drained with high to very high runoff and moderately slow permeability making them suitable for year-round grazing by livestock. It is important to leave adequate levels of forage on the soil surface to protect soil integrity and minimize the risk of erosion. The Lobitos loam soil series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed on moderately hard sandstone and shale. Lobitos soils are on uplands and have slopes of 5 to 50 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 30 inches [6]. Used mostly for pasture and rangeland, some areas have been cultivated to grow grain, hay, barley, and flax. Where not cultivated, vegetation primarily consists of annual grasses and forbs with some brush including coyote brush, cascara berry, and poison oak [6]. Lobitos loam soils are well drained with moderate to rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability making them suitable for year-round grazing by livestock. It is important to leave adequate levels of forage on the soil surface to protect soil integrity and minimize the risk of erosion. The Tierra soil series consists of deep, moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvial materials from sedimentary rocks. Tierra soils are on dissected terraces and low hills and have slopes of 2 to 50 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 18 inches (6]. Used for grazing, growing grains, and growing small grains, and small areas for growing a large number of crops, though many cultivated areas have been reverted to grass. Where not cultivated, vegetation composition is primarily annual grasses and forbs [6]. Tierra soils are moderately well drained with slow to rapid runoff and very slow permeability. Tierra soils are suited to year-round livestock grazing, though areas with notably slow permeability are susceptible to soil compaction and grazing should be delayed until soil is firm enough to withstand grazing pressure, typically summer and fall months. The Tunitas soil series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils. They have formed from fine textured alluvium from mixed basic igneous and sedimentary rock sources. Tunitas soils are on nearly level to moderately steep fan terraces and alluvial fans. The mean annual precipitation is about 25 inches [6]. Most bodies of this soil class are cultivated, primarily used to grow crops including artichokes Brussels sprouts, flax, small grains, and grain hay. Some sites are used as irrigated pasture for grazing [6]. Tunitas soils are moderately well drained with slow to medium runoff and slow permeability. Areas often receive excess water by runoff from surrounding lands and lower lying areas may have temporary high water table during rainy seasons (winter). These soils are very limited on the Ranch but grazing should occur during dry summer months when soils are firm enough to withstand grazing pressure. The Watsonville soil series consists of deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium. Watsonville soils are on old coastal terraces and valleys and have slopes of 0 to 50 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 28 inches [6]. Watsonville soils are commonly 151 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 acumen used as irrigated pasture and to grow field crops, row crops, and specialty crops such as strawberries and Brussels sprouts. Where not cultivated, vegetation typically consists of annual grasses, forbs, and a few coastal chaparral plants [61. These soils are somewhat poorly drained because perched water tables occur during periods of heavy water applications. Slow to rapid runoff and very slow permeability make Watsonville soils very susceptible to soil compaction. Livestock grazing should be delayed until dry summer months when soils are firm enough to withstand grazing pressure. On steeper, more erosion -prone slopes and riparian corridors susceptible to soil compaction, grazing should be delayed until soil is firm enough to withstand grazing pressure without impacting soil stability. Livestock grazing should be managed to protect the soil from erosion as loss of the surface layer can severely decrease forage productivity. The risk of erosion can be reduced by maintaining adequate plant cover and allowing sufficient residual dry matter (RDM) to remain on the soil surface at the conclusion of the grazing season. s 161 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 17IPage Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 m X = to 71 CI D w n- a ce/ its 1 1 / -.— — r r ,� _ ., t �t " r _ -- - , I I r Ilk .-- r rr `r ��A A --- '_ —� — _ Y� 1.._ _ 1 -- _ lr o / --rte �! n : Tats Ranch - Soils Map Mixed Alluv ial Land: Colrro Loam: 245.89 Ac res 'Fe rro Loa m: 438.96 Acre s Gand Lobito 11 -15 Acres zos a Tunita s Loam: 152 Acres Terra ce Es rpments: 1-64 A cre s Stan Loam: 2147 Acre s Gazas Loam: 57-34 WJatsarrville Laam: 3-53 Acres Rough Bra de n Land: 45-h5 Acres0 Mile s Labitas Loa m: 96.31 A cre s Gams an d Lobito Soils: 0.0026 A cre s 0 Midp eninsu[[a Regional Op en Spac e Dish -lc! P P (MROS0) August 2017 v .'I,ie,ulA ,y�ryj 3N�"'y LJ IM SPACE 0.25 5 ' MU t1,. Disericlohe ; 8o'6i heoaoe digha l data, then ot ei se do do do e re pre si ai of survey and care .me rely po ar t is lluscufio o4 opeagrophir lemmas. Attachment 8 VEGETATION DESCRIPTION Overall existing rangeland conditions on the grazed pastureland on the Toto Ranch range from poor to excellent, depending on the forage type, presence of invasive vegetation, and RDM. Infestations of coyote brush and invasive thistles have historically reduced the quality of range conditions by outcompeting desirable vegetation and acting as a barrier to shade out seedlings of desirable vegetation on much of the Ranch. The majority of the ranch is comprised of rolling open grasslands/coastal scrub, heavily influenced by coyote brush encroachment. The steep drainages and riparian corridors are comprised of dense brush/woody vegetation and willows. A large stand of eucalyptus trees are present just east and south of the farmstead area. Overall, the vegetation diversity and level of desirable vegetation on the Ranch is excellent and supports an abundant, diverse wildlife population while maintaining a highly productive agricultural value. RANGELAND PASTURES: A combination of annual grassland and coastal scrub habitat covers approximately 60-65 percent of the Ranch comprised of a diverse vegetation composition, ranging from 100 percent annual grassland to areas heavily influenced by coyote brush. The vast majority of the grassland forage species are introduced non-native palatable grasses and low forbs that are desirable for livestock grazing. Grassland and scrubland habitats are present on the ridge tops and gentle slopes throughout the Ranch. Upland slopes and ridge tops on the Ranch were historically dryland farmed but were returned to grazed pastureland during the 1970s. These areas are highly productive and relatively free of invasive thistles, except for sparse patches. Dense woody vegetation dominates many of the small drainages and steeper canyon lands within the grazed pasture. While these areas provide little palatable forage for livestock, they provide shaded locations for loafing, particularly along fringe areas adjacent to the grasslands. Vegetation diversity and overall forage production have historically been limited in the lower -lying portions of the ranch, dominated in many areas by dense brush and willows. Invasive plant control efforts by the landowner have reduced the presence and dispersal of invasive vegetation on the Ranch when compared to historic levels. In addition to invasive plant control, the tenant has mowed coyote brush for several years, increasing desirable forage in many of the front pastures between the farmstead and Highway -1. A comprehensive vegetation assessment was conducted on April 11, 2017, included as Attachment -C to this plan. Figure -3: Exemplary upland habitat on the Toto Ranch comprised annual grasslands impacted by coyote brush encroachment. Many of the grassland/scrub habitat is comprised of about 60 percent annual grassland and 40 percent coyote brush. 181 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 RIPARIAN AND AQUATIC HABITAT: A number of ephemeral streams originate on the Toto Ranch, flowing south to north into Dry Creek and Tunitas Creek. Tunitas and Dry Creeks are perennial streams that flow east to west along the north border of the Ranch. Vegetation types within the riparian corridors are very similar across the Ranch, comprised of dense woody vegetation including brush, willows, alders, and boxelder trees. Two (2) perennial stockponds, one (1) seasonal stockpond, and several smaller seasonal catchments are present on the Ranch. In addition, a number of natural springs are located throughout the Ranch. Vegetation composition around the ponds is primarily annual grassland and coyote brush with the exception of the "Quarry Pond" which is surrounded by willows. Aquatic habitat adjacent to and within the stockponds consists of sedges, rushes, and a variety of other aquatic species. Stockponds and catchments located in the grasslands tend to have invasive thistles around them. A list of riparian and aquatic vegetation species observed during the April 2017 site visit are listed in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1— Riparian and aquatic vegetation observed during an April 2017 site visit includes: RIPARIAN/AQUATIC VEGETATION (OBSERVED) — April 2017 Latin Name Common Name Acer negundo Boxelder Alnus rhombifolia White alder Alnus rubra Red alder Azola filiculoides Water fern Carex bolanderi Bolander's sedge Carexspp. Sedges Eleocharis macrostachya Pale spikerush Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Water pennywort Juncus bufonius Toad rush Juncus effuses Soft rush Juncus patens Spreading rush Juncus phaeocephalus Brown -headed rush Juncus spp. Rushes Juncus xiphioides Irisleaf rush Luzula comosa Pacific woodrush Nasturtium officinale Watercress Oenanthe sarmentosa Water parsley Typha latifolia Cattails Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Rumex crispus Curly dock Salix spp. Willows 191 Page Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 INVASIVE VEGETATION: Invasive vegetation has historically impacted the growth of desirable vegetation including forage for grazing livestock. During an April 2017 site visit, a few scattered individual wooly distaff (Carthamus lanatus) plants were identified in the flats near the farmstead. Milk thistle (Silybum marianum), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) are found in scattered locations across the Ranch in low densities, though these thistles tend to vary in abundance annually based on precipitation patterns but typically don't dominate grasslands under moderate grazing conditions in San Mateo County. Onion grass (Romulea rosea) is found growing throughout the annual grasslands across many parts of the Ranch. Onion grass occurrences in San Mateo County are becoming more common but have not yet been rated by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). Onion grass is a small, erect perennial herb with bulbous roots and produces a small purple flower in the spring (Figure -4). Onion grass is difficult for grazing animals to digest and if consumed in large quantities, can create a fiber block in cattle. There are currently no viable treatments or control measures recommended for onion grass on rangelands. Invasive plants found in the riparian corridor are primarily limited to fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Himalayan blackberries (Rubus armeniacus), and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum). French broom (Genista monspessulana), a woody perennial, has become established in portions of Tunitas and Dry Creek. French broom is classified as a "High" concern by CaI-IPC as it spreads rapidly and will outcompete desirable vegetation. See Invasive Weed Control in Section VII for management recommendations. Table 2.2 — Cal-IPC Rate Invasive plant species list. INVASIVE VEGETATION (OBSERVED) —April 2017 Latin Name Carduus pycnocephalus Carthamus lanatus Cirsium vulgare Conium maculatum Cortaderia jubata Delairea odorata Foeniculum vulgare Genista monspessulana Helminthotheca ecioides Silybum marianum Common Name Cal-IPC Rating Italian Thistle Moderate Wooly distaff thistle Moderate (alert) Bull Thistle Moderate Poison hemlock Moderate Purple pampas grass High Cape Ivy High Fennel High French Broom High Bristly Ox -tongue Limited Milk Thistle Limited Table 2.3 — Rangeland weeds not desirable for livestock grazing. INVASIVE VEGETATION (OBSERVED) —April 2017 Latin Name Common Name Cal-IPC Rating Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Not Rated Romulea rosea Onion Grass Not Rated Solanum furcatum Forked nightshade Not Rated Solanum douglasii Greenspot nightshade Not Rated Xanthium spinosum Spiny cocklebur Not Rated 201 Page Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment ti Figure -4: Onion grass (Romulea rosea) found on the Toto Ranch. Note the small purple flower and bulbous root balls. WATER SOURCES The Toto Ranch has historically lacked ample water supply, particularly under drought conditions, to provide adequate residential and stock water year round. Livestock water within the farmstead and pastureland adjacent to the farmstead is provided through a number of water troughs. The water troughs are supplied via two (2) wells on the ridge near the south property boundary; one well is pumped via a solar pump and the second via a windmill (Figure -5). In addition to the developed water systems, a network of stockponds and seasonal catchments provide stock water throughout the Ranch. A number of natural springs are present but not currently developed to provide stock water. Livestock do not have access to Tunitas Creek or Dry Creek and creeks are not considered viable water sources for the livestock operation. Residential water for the farmstead area is provided via a natural spring located on the ridge to the south of the farmstead. Refer to Toto Ranch Water Infrastructure Map (Exhibit -E). Figure -5: Windmill powered well located on the ridge along the southern property boundary. Well water is pumped into storage tanks and then flows via gravity to the farmstead area where water is provided to livestock in a number of water troughs. 211 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 el .r - ray o. . + c re me ro y c green is ilurrc io a od gnegroph is imunes Attachment 8 WILDLIFE Wildlife is abundant throughout the Toto Ranch. The riparian corridors, particularly around the stockponds, provide habitat for various aquatic and amphibian species, including the federally listed California red -legged frog (CRLF). Black tailed deer, coyote, bobcats, badgers and many other animals are present on the Ranch. Special Status Species' The California Natural Diversity Database lists a number of special status wildlife species found within the Tunitas Creek watershed, most of which are found in the lower reaches and tidal areas. A large group of Midpen staff and specialized biologists surveyed Toto Ranch in April of 2017 and developed a comprehensive list of wildlife species observed on the Ranch. Special status wildlife species potentially found in the upper portions of the watershed, and found either historically or currently on the Toto Ranch include: A. Animals AMPHIBIANS/REPTILES: Rana draytonii, California red -legged frog - Federal threatened, CA species of special concern Thamnophis sirtalis tetratania, San Francisco garter snake — and State Federal endangered BIRDS: Athene cunicularia, Burrowing owl — CA species of special concern Circus cyaneus, Northern Harrier — CA species of special concern Geothlypis trichas sinuosa, San Francisco common yellowthroat — USFW bird of conservation concern & CA species of special concern Selasphorus sasin, Allen's Hummingbird - USFW bird of conservation concern FISH: Oncorhynchus kisutch, Coho Salmon - Federal endangered & State endangered Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus, Steelhead Trout — Federal threatened MAMMMALS: Neotoma fuscipes annectens, San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat — CA species of special concern Taxidea taxus, American badger — CA species of special concern B. Plants Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus, Choris' popcorn flower — CNPS Rank 1B.2 & Midpen BMP ' This infonnation is used for planning purposes only 231 Page Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 EXISTING AGRICULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE ➢ Agricultural Buildings Agricultural buildings located on the Ranch include a 4,390 ft.2 metal -sided barn/shop with utilities and a 1,325 ft.2 hay barn. The metal -sided barn/shop building is located in the main yard, includes running water, power, concrete floor, and is in good condition. The hay barn is located just east of the residence and is in fair condition structurally; however, the roof is in poor condition. ➢ Corrals and Congregation Areas A set of wood livestock corrals are located within the farmstead area used for processing and shipping/receiving livestock. The corrals are old but in fair condition and function adequately for the existing livestock operation on the Ranch. The corral is accessible year-round by truck/trailer and semi -trucks via an all-weather gravel road. Figure -6: Wooden livestock corral with metal -sided barn/shop building (right). Small pastures or flight pens are ideal for running sheep, goats and other small livestock (foreground). ➢ Water Sources Water is provided to livestock primarily through a number of plastic, concrete, and galvanized water troughs located within the farmstead area and nearby pastures. All water troughs should be equipped with wildlife escape ramps to prevent entrapment of wildlife. Water is primarily supplied by a windmill/well and solar pump/well. Water is collected in one 2,500 gallon and two (2) 5,000 -gallon water storage tanks near the wells and flows via gravity to the farmstead before distribution to the troughs in/around the farmstead. 241 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 A network of fourteen (14) stockponds and seasonal water catchments provide stock water throughout the remainder of the Ranch, though water is often seasonal, particularly under drought conditions. Livestock tend to rely primarily on trough water around the farmstead during late summer and fall months. Increased water distribution and placement of new water troughs would increase livestock distribution and forage utilization in more remote pastures. Residential water is provided via a natural spring above the residence, collected in a 5,000 -gallon water storage tank, and then pumped to the house. Figure -7: A plastic water trough in the pasture south of the residence. Note the invasive thistle and poison hemlock growing around the trough. These plastic troughs are designed to be temporary and should be replaced with galvanized or concrete troughs in grazed pastures. A wildlife escape ramp is missing from this trough and should be installed to protect wildlife that may fall into the water. ➢ Roads State Route -1 (Cabrillo Highway), a well -traveled, paved State Highway delineates the west property boundary of the Ranch for approximately 1.2 miles. The main entrance to the Ranch originates off State Route -1, comprised of a paved/gravel road. The driveway, part of historic Star Hill Road, continues east for approximately 3/4 of a mile to the farmstead area. The driveway, where paved is in good condition; however the gravel sections are in poor condition with numerous large potholes. The driveway receives heavy year-round use by the residential/grazing tenant with added impacts from the many field day events the tenant hosts. While the gravel section of the driveway is in poor condition, when properly maintained, the driveway poses no risk to downstream water quality. In general, roads on the Ranch are in fair to good condition, though minimally maintained. Most Ranch roads are minimally graded with native vegetation ground cover present, often times delineated by vehicle tracks in the vegetation from continued use by the tenant. While many of the roads are stable and in good condition, several areas are impacted by active gullying/rutting from surface water flow. Winter rains will continue to cause damage to the road surface and potentially transport sediment into local streams. In addition, a number of roads, particularly along the back half of the Ranch, are overgrown with brush creating hazardous access conditions for vehicles and pose a fire risk from vehicle ignition sources during hot dry conditions. 251 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 A ranch road beginning in the farmstead and looping around to the back half of the Ranch is impassible due to a large seep/spring creating a mud bog. The road was historically accessible but has not been used in several years. If road repairs are undertaken in this location, (installation of culvert or ford crossing, road reroute, or other) engineering oversight should ensure correct sizing and placement of erosion control features, to allow access and protection of wetland features associated with the spring. Figure -8: Gully/rutting activity along an insloped road just south of the farmstead. Large gully caused by surface water flow during winter storm events. Road should be re -graded and water diversion points installed to relieve surface flow to protect the integrity of the road. 261 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 ➢ Fencing Toto Ranch is secured on all borders by a combination of "New Zealand style" smooth wire fencing and natural barriers. Interior pasture fencing currently divides the ranch into five (5) main pastures with numerous additional small pastures around the farmstead. Interior pasture fencing is comprised of "New Zealand style" fencing in varying condition, barbed wire fence, and natural barriers. Maintenance of the "New Zealand style" fencing is ongoing as fences are relatively old and the smooth wire used for the fencing tends to break often when compared to traditional barbed wire fencing. Landowner has installed new barbed wire fencing along some pasture boundaries. Natural slope, rock, and brush barriers have been used historically to contain cattle in many places on the Ranch; however, the brush barriers would be ineffective if wildfire should burn boundaries of the grassland areas. The grazing tenant installed a Management Intensive Grazing (MIG) system consisting of approximately 60 small grazing paddocks, constructed of temporary electric fencing. The MIG, located west of the farmstead, is designed for high -intensity, short duration grazing as cattle are regularly rotated between paddocks during the "green" growing season, typically January through June. No notable resource management benefits have been derived through use of the MIG system. Figure -9: Sample of New Zealand style smooth wire fencing on the Toto Ranch. The high tinsel smooth wire is susceptible to damage and often breaks. Most fences on the ranch are older and in varying condition. 271 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 to use the besi av aila ble oiglial dakr,,he ;e data do nor represent a le gal su n Attachment 8 RANGELAND CONDITION The Toto Ranch is comprised of approximately 60 percent annual grasslands and/or grassland - coastal scrub, which have historically been farmed, and more recently grazed with cattle. Grazed rangeland pastures on the ranch total approximately 940 acres excluding the farmstead area. Of the 940 acres of pastureland, approximately 546 acres are comprised of annual grassland or a coastal scrub/grassland mix that provide palatable forage for livestock. The current grazing tenant, Erik and Doniga Markegard dba Markegard Family Grass-fed, has resided upon and leased the grazing rights on Toto Ranch since the late 1980s while under private ownership and continuing under current ownership by Midpen. Markegard Family Grass-fed currently grazes the rangeland pastures on Toto Ranch with beef cattle, a combination of stocker cattle and cow/calf pairs raised primarily to market as grass-fed beef. Current forage conditions on the Ranch appear good with abundant palatable forage available for livestock, with an even mix of dry standing forage and emerging green vegetation. Forage conditions and residual dry matter (RDM) on the property indicate an appropriate stocking rate in relation to current forage production PI. Livestock distribution and overall forage utilization vary based on available stockwater. Natural water sources have been limited by drought conditions over the past four years and livestock have primarily relied on water sources near the farmstead area. As a result, livestock distribution and overall forage utilization have been lower than expected, especially on the eastern half of the Ranch. The current rotational grazing regime provides good control of livestock distribution and forage utilization across the Ranch provided stockwater is available. ➢ Forage Quality Forage quality in addition to forage quantity (annual production) play a key role in determining carrying capacity for a pasture and for the entire ranch. Forage quality as well as forage production vary somewhat across the Ranch based on soil type, topography, aspect, invasive vegetation, and water. In general, forage quality is good with a high abundance of palatable, nutritious grasses and forbs. Forage quality in some areas is negatively impacted by the presence of invasive vegetation. Several of the steeper, forested/brushy slopes provide little to no palatable forage for livestock. Mineral and nutrient supplements are currently provided to livestock on the ranch to maximize productivity and maintain livestock health, though it is not known if mineral and/or nutrient supplements are necessary to account for potential nutrient deficiencies in native forage. A thorough nutrient analysis may be performed on forage samples from the Ranch, if desired by the livestock operator, to more accurately determine forage nutrient quality and livestock supplement requirements. 291 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 ac men Forage Production Palatable forage production ranges from fair to excellent across the Ranch excluding the steeper, wooded slopes and dense brushy canyons. Forage production may be slightly lower around rocky outcroppings or eroded slopes, as the soil tends to be shallow, which can limit rooting and nutrient/water uptake by plants. Palatable forage production can be impacted by the presence of invasive vegetation such as distaff thistle and predominantly coyote brush, which outcompete desirable vegetation, and is evident on many sites throughout the Ranch. Highly palatable annual grasses and low growing forbs comprise the majority of vegetation available for grazing livestock. Based on the available standing forage observed during an April 2017 site visit, the current stocking rate is adequate when compared to annual forage production on the Ranch 1'l, though the stocking rate tends to vary seasonally. Estimated annual forage production for the Toto Ranch is determined through estimates based on soil class provided in the San Mateo County Soil Survey (USDA, 1985). Non -forage producing areas of the Ranch, including the developed farmstead, stockponds, forested slopes, and dense brushy canyons have been deducted from the total grassland acres utilized to calculate available dry weight forage production shown in Table -6. Dry weight forage production estimates per soil class are shown in Table -3: Table -3: Total forage production estimates per soil class provided by NRCS. Soil Map Unit I Approx. Acres Total Dry Weight Unfavorable Year Forage Production (Ibs./acre) Normal Favorable Year CIC2-D2-E2 Colma loam 246 1,800 2,500 3,000 GbF2 Gazos loam 57 1,000 1,500 1,800 GsF2 Gazos-Lobitos stony loam 23 1,000 1,500 1,800 LIF2 Lobitos loam 96 1,500 2,250 2,700 Ma Mixed Alluvial Land - stony 11 1,000 1,500 1,800 Rh Rough Broken Land - rocky 46 1,500 2,250 2,700 Ta Terrace Escarpments — sandy 2 1,000 1,500 1,800 TeD2-E2-E3 Tierra loam 439 2,000 2,500 3,500 TxA Tunitas loam 4 1,000 1,500 1,800 WmA Watsonville loam 4 1,000 1,500 1,800 Total Grazed Acres 952 301 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 acumen VI. Capacity for Conducting Agricultural Uses A capacity assessment of agricultural uses on the Toto Ranch has been approximated by reviewing both current and historic agricultural uses and other factors. Information provided in the following section establishes a basis for determining potential levels of agricultural uses on the property by quantifying the carrying capacity based on existing infrastructure, forage production, soil quality, water availability, and space while protecting ecological resources. GRAZING CAPACITY ESTIMATE Rangeland livestock production is the primary agricultural use on the Toto Ranch in terms of acres in production. Forage production estimates are utilized to determine livestock carrying capacity and an estimated range of stocking rates. Proposed carrying capacity estimates for the Ranch are established using forage production estimates based on soil class units derived from the San Mateo County Soil Survey i81. Table -4: Animal Unit Equivalents. Animal Unit Equivalents Animal Kind & Class Animal Unit Equivalent Cow, dry 1.00 Cow, with calf 1.00 Bull, mature 1.50 Horse 1.25 Replacement Heifer 0.50 (400-700 lbs.) Replacement Heifer 0.75 (700-1,000 lbs.) Sheep, mature 0.25 Lamb, 1 year old 0.15 1 An animal unit month (AUM) is the amount of dry forage consumed by one animal unit in one month (assuming consumption of dry weight forage equal to 3.3% of body weight), roughly equivalent to 1,020 pounds. Table -5 depicts available forage, per the Soil Survey descriptions, for 'favorable', 'normal', and 'unfavorable' production years. 'Available forage' is calculated by deducting the RDM desired at the end of the grazing season (average of 1,000 lbs. per acre) from the total forage production. Based on available forage on the currently grazed pasture area of the Ranch, leaving an average of 1,000 pounds of RDM, the estimated carrying capacity ranges from 957.6 AUMs in a favorable year to 365.4 AUMs in an unfavorable year with an average carrying capacity of 632.0 AUMs in normal production years (Table -6). 311 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 ac men ➢ Favorable Production Year: 957.6 AUMs = Approximately 80 cows year-round. ➢ Average Production Year: 632.0 AUMs = Approximately 53 cows year-round. Unfavorable Production Year: 365.4 AUMs = Approximately 31 cows year-round. Table -5: Available dry -weight forage for grazing livestock (currently grazed pastures) derived from NRCS Soil Survey data. Calculations assume leaving an average of 1,000 pounds per acre of RDM and 10% forage loss due to natural conditions such as wind, trampling, etc. Acreage has been deducted for the farmstead area and dense brush/wooded areas that provide little to no palatable forage (393.5 acres). Soil Map Unit Approx. I Available Dry Weight Forage Acres Production (Ibs./acre) Unfavorable Year Normal Favorable Year CIC2-D2-E2 Colma Ioarn 146 800 1,500 2,000 GbF2 Gazos loam 0 0 0 0 GsF2 Gazos-Lobitos stony loam 0 0 0 0 LIF2 Lobitos loam 76 500 1,250 1,700 Ma Mixed Alluvial Land - stony 0 0 0 0 Rb Rough Broken Land - rocky 46 500 1,250 1,700 Ta Terrace Escarpments — sandy 0 0 0 0 TeD2-E2-E3 Tierra loam 279 1,000 1,500 2,500 TxA Tunitas loam 0 0 0 0 WmA Watsonville loam 0 0 0 0 Total Grazed Acres 547 Table -6: Estimated carrying capacity for Toto Ranch based on calculated available forage production on grazeable acres. Soil Map Unit Approximate Grassland Acres Estimated (Animal Unfavorable Year Carrying Capacity Unit Months) Normal Favorable Year CIC2-02-E2 146.0 93,4 175.2 233.6 l LIF2 76.0 30.4 76.0 103.4 Rb 46,0 18,4 46.0 62.6 TeD2-E2-E3 279.0 223.2 334.8 558.0 TOTAL 547.0 365.4 632.0 957.6 Year-round Stocking Rate in Animal Units (AUs) (AU Ms = 12 months) 303 52.7 79.8 32 1 Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 Stocking rates should be adjusted downward or upward annually depending on precipitation (distribution and quantity) and annual forage production. Standing forage will determine pasture rotation, at the livestock operator's discretion, provided they remain within the prescribed forage standards. At no time should there be significant areas of bare soil void of vegetation cover present in the grazed pastures. A minimum of two to three inches of forage should be left as ground cover during both the growing season and dry summer and fall months. Table -6 details the estimated carrying capacity for the Ranch, in AUMs and AUs, as derived from forage production data provided in the NRCS Soil Survey. The estimated carrying capacity for the Ranch is approximately comparable to historic stocking levels. Coyote brush is well established in many of the steeper canyons and has expanded into the ridgetops and open grassland areas over time. Coyote brush encroachment in the grasslands has reduced forage production by 50 to 80 percent in many pastures. The landowner has attempted mechanical control of the coyote brush by mowing, primarily in the front pastures between the farmstead and State Route -1. The mowing has reduced the size of the individual plants but has done little to reduce the quantity and percent cover of the coyote brush. A coyote brush encroachment management plan should be developed for the Ranch. Future brush control efforts, including chemical control, should be considered following the recommendations in the coyote brush management plan to maintain the estimated carrying capacity. DAIRY CAPACITY The current tenant maintains a small number of dairy cows that are used for milk production as part of a cooperative Herd Share program. A large-scale dairy operation has never been a part of operations on the Toto Ranch and adequate infrastructure including loafing barn, suitable milk parlor, and wastewater treatment infrastructure, are not currently available. Instating a dairy operation on the Ranch is not recommended based on infrastructure requirements, associated economic constraints, and potential ecological/water quality impacts. ADDITIONAL LIVESTOCK, EQUINE, AND POULTRY The Ranch is currently used primarily for grass-fed beef cattle production on the productive and accessible grasslands. The tenant also produces a number of other agricultural commodities including pasture pork, chickens, eggs, goats, lambs, and turkeys that are marketed through a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) purchasing program [41. In addition to cattle, a number of horses and llamas/alpacas/emus are kept on the property and currently graze the grasslands outside of the farmstead area. A number of small pens, flight pens, coops and additional infrastructure are currently established within the farmstead area to support the production of small livestock and poultry. Tenant has experienced issues of predation on small livestock by coyotes and mountain lions in the past. Small livestock including pasture pigs, chickens, sheep, goats, turkeys, and llamas should be restricted to the designated farmstead area and associated 331 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 acumen small pastures. Pasture raised pigs create a large ground disturbance prone to erosion and promote the growth of invasive thistles. Pigs should be restricted to flat areas in the farmstead. Landowner's horses and/or working ranch horses, used as part of the grazing operation or for personal non-commercial use, may be kept on the property. Though not a current use, breeding, training, raising and selling horses (Horse Operations) are not considered agricultural uses and are not recommended on the Toto Ranch. Boarding outside horses should be prohibited. Horses should be restricted to the farmstead area and associated small pastures; horses should not be permitted to graze rangeland pastures outside of the designated farmstead area. FIELD CROP/ORCHARD PRODUCTION Portions of the Toto Ranch, primarily ridge tops, were historically farmed for silage/grain crops during the early to mid -1900s but have not been farmed since that time. The landowner does not plan to implement a large-scale cultivated farming operation on the Ranch and plans to continue use of the pastures for livestock grazing to foster and enhance habitat for wildlife. While Toto Ranch has suitable land for farming, sediment from the highly erodible soils on the Ranch would negatively impact downstream water quality and disrupt/destroy valuable wildlife habitat. Cultivated farming operations are not recommended in any capacity on the Ranch. The tenant may grow vegetable crops and/or tree crops for personal use provided such production is performed within the farmstead area. Vegetable crops considered for planting by the tenant must be approved by Midpen's Natural Resources Department prior to planting and should not include any species considered by the California invasive Species Council (http://www.cal-ipc.org) as "invasive", such as fennel. Trees imported for planting on the property must be pre -approved by Midpen's Natural Resources staff and soil associated with trees and potted plants must be tested for the presence of phytophthora prior to entering the property. Any and all soils associated with potted plants and/or trees that test positive for phytophthora are strictly prohibited on the property. Prior written consent may be required by Midpen and location of vegetable garden must be pre -approved by Midpen staff. Vegetable gardens and/or small orchards should be located in an area that will not impact downstream water quality and will not decrease the grazing capacity of the Ranch. VII. Management Recommendations & Best Management Practices (BMPs): The Toto Ranch has a long history of diversified agricultural production. The following management recommendations and Best Management Practices (BMPs) will help ensure the sustainability of agricultural production on the Ranch while protecting rangeland health, soil stability, water quality and the control of invasive vegetation to cooperatively conserve and enhance habitat for wildlife. 341 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 acumen RANGELAND LIVESTOCK OPERATION Vegetation Prescriptions: Leaving prescribed levels of residual dry matter (RDM) on the ground surface will provide a grassland seed crop for the following season, minimize the risk for soil erosion and sedimentation, protect water quality and reduce the presence of invasive vegetation. To protect soil stability, minimize the risk of sedimentation into local streams, and the spread of invasive vegetation, all grazed pastures on the ranch should meet the following RDM performance standards per average slope at the conclusion of the grazing season: ■ 0-30% Slopes — An average minimum of two to three inches of forage — approximately an average of 800-1,000 pounds per acre per Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) definition. ■ Greater than 30% Slopes — An average minimum of three to four inches of RDM — approximately an average of 1,000-1,200 pounds per acre per NRCS and UCCE definition. At no time should there be significant areas of bare soil void of vegetation cover in any of the grazed pastures, particularly on steep upland slopes or areas adjacent to riparian corridors. A minimum of two to three inches of forage should be left as ground cover during both the growing season and dry summer and fall months. Grazing Season: A light to moderate year-round rotational grazing regime is best suited for the Toto Ranch. Rotating livestock between pastures, particularly when grazing for a short duration, will require a greater commitment by the livestock manager in terms of time and monitoring, but will ultimately enhance biodiversity, aesthetics and overall forage production. Lack of available stockwater has historically limited grazing capacity during the late summer and fall months, particularly under drought conditions. If limited water availability during summer and fall months persists, Midpen may elect to implement a seasonal grazing regime or a partially seasonal grazing regime with higher stocking rates during winter and spring and reduced stocking during the summer and fall. In a rotational grazing regime, standing forage will determine pasture rotation, at the livestock operator's discretion, provided they remain within the recommended forage standards. On steeper, more erosion prone slopes, and riparian pastures with softer soils, grazing should be delayed until soil is firm enough to withstand grazing pressure without impacting soil stability. Livestock grazing should be managed to protect the soil from erosion as loss of the surface layer can severely decrease long-term forage productivity. 351 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 acumen Water Supply: Livestock generally prefer the cleaner, cooler water in troughs. Developing alternative water sources will reduce dependence by livestock on stream channels/stockponds, minimizing potential impacts to aquatic vegetation and stream bank stability. In addition to stockponds, a number of galvanized, concrete, and plastic troughs are located within the farmstead and in pastures to the south and west of the farmstead, all fed via the wells on the ridge southwest of the farmstead. A number of stock water troughs are located within the farmstead/corral and in pastures adjacent to the farmstead, including numerous plastic troughs. More durable, permanent concrete or galvanized troughs should replace the plastic troughs. Continue to monitor water infrastructure and complete maintenance and repairs as necessary. Wildlife escape ramps should be installed in all water troughs on the Ranch. The livestock water system providing water to the farmstead and water troughs in pastures adjacent to the farmstead, including the wells, solar pump, windmill, pipes, and storage tank are in excellent condition. Despite the quality infrastructure, low water yield from existing wells often limits livestock grazing capacity during summer and fall months. Water from the wells should be used strictly for livestock water and shall not be used for pasture irrigation. Irrigating annual grasslands does not provide an ecological benefit. A large, naturally occurring spring in Field -3 located along the loop road has made the road impassible. Developing the spring following District guidance for wildlife friendly spring development and installing a solar powered pump, storage tank, and water troughs will provide a valuable water supply to Field -3, which lacks sufficient stock water. Developing this water source will allow properly timed grazing to promote distribution of the Choris' popcorn flower, which is growing near the spring. Additionally, developing the spring and distributing water to troughs in the uplands of the pasture will reduce the use of the spring by livestock and minimize the risk of the Choris' popcorn flower being trampled/damaged by cattle. A thorough assessment of the site should be performed to determine potential construction impacts and hydrologic function of the site which may affect the nearby Choris' popcorn flower population. If determined that construction is feasible without impacting the population, continue subsequent monitoring of the Choris' popcorn flower population at this site to determine changes is density and distribution and amend management practices as necessary to enhance habitat for the population. See Proposed Infrastructure & Improvements Map for location of proposed water infrastructure. ➢ Stockponds: Landowner should perform routine maintenance of stock ponds, including de -silting and vegetation management to maintain water storage capacity, habitat value, and protect downstream water bodies from sedimentation, as necessary. Maintaining the spillway and berm on the stockponds will preserve storage capacity, extend lifespan of stockponds, and enhance habitat for aquatic species. Stockponds on the ranch are in good condition with the exception of 361 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 a series of small ponds located near the driveway in pastures west of the farmstead. While these ponds are small, and often seasonal, they provide a valuable water source for livestock. Well developed stockponds providing valuable wildlife habitat and an important water source for wildlife and livestock should be prioritized for maintenance and repairs over small seasonal ponds and/or catchments. An analysis of stockponds should be performed by the landowner to determine which stockponds should be considered for maintenance and repairs based on water rights, their habitat value, stockwater value, and risk to downstream water quality. Smaller stockponds or seasonal catchments may be decommissioned and restored to natural drainage to protect downstream water quality if determined to not provide significant habitat value or an important water source for livestock. Perennial ponds, suitable seasonal stockponds (for which water rights exist) and their associated surrounding upland habitat should be enhanced to support California red -legged frog which currently occur on site, as well as a population of San Francisco garter snake which was documented as occurring along Tunitas Creek from Highway 1 to Dry Creek during research conducted by Barry from 1971-1983 (California Natural Diversity Database). Pond management activities require a suite of regulatory agency approvals and should not be undertaken unless approved by the District Natural Resources Department. ➢ Supplemental Feed: Proper placement of livestock watering facilities and supplemental feed/mineral stations will promote good livestock distribution. Supplemental feed (mineral tubs, salt blocks, etc.) should be placed on uplands and ridge tops away from water sources and riparian features. It is recommended that supplemental forage provided to livestock be certified as "Weed Free". If certified weed free hay is not available, locally produced supplemental forage (hay) that is fed in pastures should be thoroughly inspected by Midpen Natural Resource Department staff prior to feeding to ensure it does not contain invasive vegetation that may spread seed into pastures. Supplemental feeding should not be used to extend the grazing season beyond the point at which the prescribed RDM levels are reached in the pastures. ➢ Fencing and Corrals: Landowner should maintain existing ranch infrastructure in good condition and make repairs or improvements as necessary. Maintaining quality, functional infrastructure, including fencing and corrals, will increase the ease of livestock handling and effectiveness of rotating livestock between pastures as well controlling livestock access to sensitive riparian corridors. Providing safe facilities will provide a low -stress atmosphere for livestock and minimize risk of injury. While most perimeter fence around Toto Ranch is "cow tight", many sections of the New Zealand style smooth wire fence along the west and south property boundaries are old and failing. 371 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 Sections and/or all of the western and southern boundary fences should be replaced with barbed wire cattle fence as existing fence fails. Use Midpen specifications for livestock fencing including galvanized wire, steel t -posts, and galvanized pipe braces. Install a new section of barbed wire livestock fence southeast of the farmstead to split Field -3 into two separate pastures. Dividing this pasture will make management of the Choris' popcorn flower more feasible by allowing grazing tenant to rotate cattle and properly time grazing. Additionally, by aligning the new fence to bisect pond TC-06, the pond can be used as a water source for both pastures and grazing can be timed to protect emergent vegetation for CRLF. The fence should extend from the south property line north to an existing cross -fence that runs east from the farmstead (approximately 3,100 linear feet). See Proposed Infrastructure and Improvements map for new fence alignment. Old fencing that does not act as a pasture barrier may impede wildlife travel or injure wildlife/livestock. Old fencing should be removed and disposed of at a waste facility. Fencing in the MIG areas should be decommissioned and removed, as there is not significant resource management benefits to the system under annual rangeland conditions and seasonal water supply. Additionally, the MIG system creates an aesthetic impact to the scenic coastline for future recreational visitors. ➢ Herd Health: Maintaining a healthy, productive livestock herd is fundamental to profitability and sustainability. A herd health program that includes appropriate inoculations is recommended. De -worming livestock and providing additional nutrients will further increase productivity. ➢ Ranch Roads: Ranch roads provide access for the grazing operation, infrastructure/ranch maintenance, restoration work, recreation, and emergency response. Landowner and/or grazing tenant should work to maintain ranch roads in good condition. Routine maintenance may include cleaning ditches and culverts, particularly during storm events, is important. Maintaining road grades, water diversions, and water bars during winter months to minimize water flow on road surfaces is important in reducing potential soil erosion and road damage. Mowing vegetation on road surfaces is recommended to provide a safe driving environment. Mowing, as opposed to grading, is recommended to leave a vegetation cover on the road surface that helps hold soil in place during storm events and reduce the risk of erosion and damage to ranch roads. Additionally, mowing roads will not create a soil disturbance that can lead to increased spread of invasive plant species. Two sections of ranch road are in poor condition with large ruts creating hazardous driving conditions and causing continued sedimentation of downstream waterways. These sections of road should be repaired to prevent continued damage to the driving surface and protect water 381 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 acumen quality on the Ranch (Exhibit -G). Improvements may including rocking the ditch, re -grading the road bed, revegetating the road bed/ditch, installation of rolling dips/water diversions, and installation of erosion control products such as straw waddles or silt fence. The main gravel driveway between State Route -1 and the farmstead has many large potholes that should be graded/filled to make access to the Ranch easier, but the driveway, when properly maintained, is currently not at risk of affecting natural resource values on the property. Any road repairs that may discharge sediment into downstream watercourses may require permits from regulatory agencies prior to implementation. Proposed road work should first be approved by District natural resources staff to ensure regulatory compliance. EXHIBIT -G — PROPOSED ROAD REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE Toio Ranch - Road Repairs TUNITAS CREEK &P,EN SPACE PRIES'ERVE Road Repair Locations 3 - Road Repairs/Grading Midpenwnsula Regional Open Space District 4MROSDJ August 2017 !1 ntilm V7 0 0.25 0.5 'Mk 6.Pi.aca.kiw.fo,ametfi.besn wabobLdienaldaa.b..dxudo no, .ep resent a Regal a may a.d an mene'rya era,. 39 1 ) Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 ➢ Drought Preparedness Agricultural production has historically provided a significant source of income for the Ranch and continues to be an important factor in maintaining its sustainability. Drought conditions can severely hinder the operational capacity and productivity of a ranch and can threaten long-term sustainability. Planning ahead to accommodate for a drought can alleviate some of the potential impacts such as lack of forage, lack of water, herd health, mineral deficiencies, and overall lack of production by livestock when droughts occur. The following management practices can help alleviate the impacts of drought: ■ Maintain a clean, reliable water source for livestock and maintain an increased water storage capacity. The Ranch currently has a good water supply system in place, though water production is often limited during summer/fall months. Develop additional water sources such as springs and wells if feasible. If water yield increases, increase water storage by adding additional water storage tanks for livestock drinking water. ■ Lower stocking rates to slightly below the recommended carrying capacity for the forage production year to provide a small surplus of forage to carry livestock through the fall until new, green forage is available. If drought conditions persist, lower stocking rates further to extend the grazing season and use of available forage. ■ Implement a grass banking system. Save forage in a designated pasture by minimizing or eliminating grazing pressure during the late spring and summer. If available forage is depleted in grazed pastures, forage will be available in the grass bank pasture. ■ Store supplemental forage, such as hay, that can be fed to livestock to supplement the natural forage during a drought. ■ Provide livestock with mineral/protein supplements to increase forage utilization, herd health, and overall productivity. PATHOGEN REDUCTION AND RISK MANAGEMENT Livestock waste contains many microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Some of these microorganisms do not cause sickness in animals or humans, however, some are pathogens, meaning they are capable of causing disease in animals and/or humans. Pathogens can be transmitted to humans directly through contact with animals and animal waste or indirectly through contaminated water or food. Common pathogens responsible for health related ailments in humans include cryptosporidium, E. coli, leptospira, and salmonella. The following BMPs should be implemented to help reduce the risk of animal waste contaminating water sources within and downstream of the Toto Ranch: ■ Restrict livestock access to Tunitas Creek, Dry Creek, and perennial tributaries to both water courses to eliminate fecal deposits in the waterway. 401 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 ■ Maintain a natural vegetative buffer of no less than thirty (30) feet from the top of bank in Tunitas Creek, Dry Creek, and perennial tributaries. The vegetative buffer will act as a natural filter to trap potential pathogens before they reach the water body. ■ Domestic swine have a high frequency of salmonella. Restrict pasture swine rearing to flat pens within the farmstead area and maintain a minimum 100 foot vegetative buffer between swine and perennial streams. ■ Control runoff and leaching from stockpiled manure, confined livestock, and corral facilities. Maintain a 100 foot vegetative buffer between corrals/confined livestock pens and perennial streams. ■ Fly and vermin control in livestock facilities may also reduce the spread and subsequent infection of other animals with pathogenic bacteria. Flies and bird fecal samples from cattle farms in the U.S. have tested positive for E. coll. Numerous studies indicate that Salmonella can survive for at least several days, and for as long as nine months, on insects and rodents, and for up to five months in rodent feces. Work to control flies and rodents in the farmstead area. Additionally, remove excess fecal waste from livestock including sheep, goats, horses, chickens, cattle, alpacas and swine within the confined livestock pens and corrals to reduce fly and insect presence. • • Provide off -stream livestock water sources such as water troughs to reduce the use of streams by cattle and other livestock for water. Implement a comprehensive livestock husbandry program including appropriate and timely inoculations and de -worming to minimize the risk of contracting and/or spreading disease to other livestock, humans, and wildlife. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES MANAGEMENT California red -legged frog Managing the intensity and timing of livestock grazing is important in managing waterways and upland habitat for the California red -legged frog (CRLF) as it has important consequences in terms of emergent vegetation and water quality important for breeding. Maintaining stockponds and controlling non-native predators are also important factors in protecting and enhancing habitat for CRLF. In general, livestock use of stockponds is beneficial for CRLF [91. Appropriate timing and grazing intensity around stockponds can produce positive ecological benefits on vegetation cover, nutrient levels, and turbidity conducive to CRLF breeding and subsistence. For more specific management recommendations, please reference Attachment -D to this plan 0'1. 411 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 San Francisco garter snake Management for California red -legged frog is also beneficial to San Francisco garter snake. Use of vegetation and/or fencing off portions of ponds to provide adequate escape habitat during the frog mating season (Dec to March) and San Francisco garter snake breeding season (March to June and September to October) and young frog emergence period (July to September) can be beneficial for both species. Managing surrounding upland habitats for a mosaic of microhabitats (some open grassland, some brush, some downed woody debris areas, etc.) can also be beneficial for successful management of San Francisco garter snake. Choris' Popcorn Flower Choris' popcorn flower is an annual herb found in coastal prairie and coastal scrub habitats in San Mateo and portions of Santa Cruz County, listed by CNPS as "fairly endangered". The species is at risk from urban development, however, under rangeland conditions, primary threats to the species result from foot traffic/trampling and competition from non-native plants/annual grasses [11]. Choris' popcorn flower typically blooms from March -June i11] and will benefit from the reduction of annual/non-native vegetation through timed livestock grazing prior to bloom (December -February). Once flowers have dropped seed, livestock grazing may commence, typically in July. Continue to monitor for presence of the specie and note any changes in distribution and abundance of known populations. Adjust timing of grazing as necessary to promote reproduction. If trampling or vehicle traffic is noted to impact the Choris' popcorn flower, temporary fencing may be installed to protect populations. Figure -10: Choris' popcorn flower is a rare, native annual herb found in multiple locations throughout the Toto Ranch. Special attention should be paid to avoid populations of Choris' popcorn flower when implementing projects and routine maintenance on the Ranch. Implement BMPs as necessary to protect existing populations. 421 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 EXHIBIT -H Map of Sensitive Resources Redacted 43 1 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL Available forage production has been impacted by non -palatable invasive plant species resulting in reduced germination of desirable forage. Invasive plants decrease forage productivity, impact livestock health, impact wildlife habitat value, and create significant fiscal impacts to the landowner/lessee. Implementing an integrated approach to controlling pest plants is critical to the success of improving forage production and quality in grazed pastures. To prevent an increase in the current extent of invasive vegetation and avoid the introduction of new invasive species on the Ranch, the landowner should manage the ranch with the minimum goal of containing the weed infestation to its current extent and preventing the introduction of new invasive species. Invasive plant control methods must be consistent with the District's IPM program and all invasive species treatment must adhere to Midpen's Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) and follow BMPs prescribed in the IPMP. The following recommended practices are designed to reduce the presence of invasive vegetation, protect soil and water quality, and promote beneficial forage production. ■ Adjust the stocking rate in order to maintain a minimum of two -three inches of beneficial, vegetation ground cover at all times. ■ Application of a selective broadleaf herbicide in the spring can be an effective strategy for the control of purple starthistle and wooly distaff thistle, particularly when treating large infestations that are not easily controlled through manual methods. Follow-up inspection and manual removal of late germinating plants during the summer is can help control late germinating plants following initial herbicide treatment. A pest control recommendation must be issued from a Pest Control Advisor for any herbicide application on the property. ■ Manually remove wooly distaff by digging or cutting out the plant at least five inches below the soil surface before they begin to flower. After flowering, the plants should be bagged and removed from site as seeds will continue to mature and ripen after the plant has been cut. ■ Mowing can be used to manage invasive thistles, provided it is well timed and used on plants with a high branching pattern. Mowing at early growth stages results in increased light penetration and rapid regrowth of the weed. If plants branch from near the base, regrowth will occur from recovering branches. Repeated mowing of plants too early in their life cycles (rosette or bolting stages) or when branches are below the mowing height will not prevent seed production, as flowers will develop below the mower cutting height. Plants with a high branching pattern are easier to control, as recovery will be greatly reduced. Even plants with this growth pattern must be mowed in the late spiny or early flowering stage to be successful. An additional mowing may be necessary in some cases. Be sure to mow well before thistles are in flower to prevent seed spread. ■ Prioritize thistle removal where the likelihood of seed spread is high such as road sides, cattle trails and loafing areas. 441 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 ■ French broom is limited on the Ranch and best controlled early as seeds remain viable in the soil for decades. Once well established, removal is extremely resource intensive. Pulling shrubs with weed wrenches is effective for broom removal in small infestations. The weed wrench removes the entire mature shrub, eliminating re -sprouting. ■ Over -seed (30 lbs./acre) infested areas at the onset of the fall rainy season with a beneficial pasture seed mix to help shade out invasive plants and reestablish desirable forage in the pastures. A pasture seed mix consisting of early germinating, rapid growth grasses and forbs, that includes low growing vegetation as well as taller grasses, is recommended. A common mix that can be effective in erosion control as well as competing against invasive vegetation in similar coastal regions includes a mix of rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), wild oats (Avena fatua), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), and Filaree (Erodium cicutarium), all of which currently exist on the property and provide highly palatable forage for grazing livestock. Midpen's Natural Resources Department staff should approve all seed mixes prior to application. ■ Carefully monitor areas where outside feed is brought in for new invasive species and remove new weeds before they become established. If feasible, feed Certified Weed Free Hay or locally sourced hay to minimize the risk of introducing new invasive plant species. ■ Do not import outside soil or fill material. It is often contaminated with invasive species and is not consistent with Easement terms. ■ Be aware of seed transport on ranch equipment and clean vehicles/equipment as needed. All personnel working in infested areas shall take appropriate precautions to not carry or spread weed seed or plant and soil diseases outside of the infested area. Such precautions will consist of, as necessary based on site conditions, cleaning of soil and plant materials from tools, equipment, shoes, clothing, or vehicles prior to entering or leaving the site. ■ Contact the local Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for funding and technical assistance to help with integrated pest management practices. ■ Onion Grass is present on Toto Ranch and there are no known control methods applicable to rangeland conditions. Continue to check with UCCE, NRCS, and County Ag Department to determine if control options become available. Implement control measures for onion grass if they become available. Implement an integrated approach described above to identifying and treating invasive plants on the Ranch that are impacting forage production and grassland health including but not limited to coyote brush, yellow starthistle, wooly distaff thistle, Italian thistle, bull thistle and onion grass. Work with Midpen, UCCE and/or local NRCS or RCD to determine best options and timing for specific treatments. 451 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 ADDITIONAL/SMALL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION Small domestic livestock including but not limited to sheep, goats, chickens, geese, pigs, llamas/alpacas, and horses should be confined to the designated farmstead area. Well established infrastructure including corrals, water sources, flight pens, coops, etc. exist within the farmstead and are suitable for the production of small domestic livestock/poultry. Domestic livestock such as sheep, goats, and chickens often attract natural predators that may inadvertently affect cattle grazing on the rangeland pastures. As such, small domestic livestock should be confined to enclosed pens/barns at night to minimize the risk of predation. Production of "pasture pork" or raising of domestic pigs should be limited to pens on flat areas within the farmstead area to minimize runoff of waste and reduce the risk of impacts to water quality. VIII. Improvements and Maintenance Recommendations Budget Fence Repair and Installation Install a new barbed wire livestock fence to separate Field -3 into two (2) separate pastures. Full replacement of west and south property line fences is recommended over time. Partial replacement of significantly damaged/failing sections may also be completed as an alternate to full replacement. Replacement of the west boundary fence should be prioritized over the south boundary fence, though work may be completed over several years. While 5 -strand barbed wire fence is more effective, a wildlife friendly fence using 4 -strand barbed wire with a smooth bottom wire is also effective, though the smooth bottom wire is susceptible to damage and may require frequent repairs. Either style fence can be made wildlife friendly if the bottom wire is situated an average of 16"-18" above the ground allowing wildlife to cross underneath while functioning to contain livestock. West boundary fenceline along State Route -1 should be 6 -strand barbed wire fence to ensure cattle do not get out on the highway. Below is a list of proposed fencing improvements for the Toto Ranch. A. West Property Boundary Fence Replace (entire replacement) B. Field -3 Cross -Fence Install C. South Property Boundary Fence Replace (entire replacement) D. Removal of Old Fence/Unused Fence/MIG E. Partial fencing of ponds may be considered as an adaptive management strategy for CRLF and SFGS F. Two Additional water tanks in the windmill area (if water yield increases) G. Two new westerly troughs off driveway for Pasture 1 & 2. 461 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 Road Repairs and Maintenance Most roads on the ranch are in good condition and require little annual maintenance. The two (2) sections of road that show signs of rutting/gully activity should be repaired to maintain road integrity and protect downstream water quality. Additionally, if the Field -3 spring is developed and road surface dries out, a culvert or ford crossing should be installed and minor grading/brushing will be required to make road passable. Special attention should be Choris' popcorn flower near this location and potential impacts to the population should be mitigated for. While the access driveway between State Route -1 and the farmstead area provides year- round access and is adequate for land management and the agricultural operation, landowner may wish to improve driveway to accommodate recreational use and the heavy vehicle traffic by the tenant's field day and workshop guests. A. Road Repairs (access road south of farmstead) (see Exhibit G, #3) B. Road Repairs (Field -3) (see Exhibit G, #1 and #2) C. Road Repairs (Driveway) Water Infrastructure Improvements Water infrastructure improvements will enhance livestock distribution and overall forage utilization as well as potentially extending the grazing season, which is currently affected by the lack of stockwater during summer/fall months. Reference the Proposed Infrastructure map for location of proposed water system improvements. A. Replace Plastic Water Troughs (In and around farmstead) B. Install New Waterline and Trough North of Farmstead C. Field -3 Water System (spring, pump, tank, pipe, and troughs) a. Project to be completed if no negative long term impacts to Choris' popcorn flower D. Ensure wildlife escape ramps are present in all troughs E. Any spring developments must adhere to the District's wildlife friendly spring development designs. Vegetation Management Implement an integrated approach that is consistent with the District's IPM Program to controlling invasive vegetation with a focus on wooly distaff thistle, French broom, onion grass, and coyote brush. Manual, mechanical, biological, and chemical control measures may be implemented including but not limited to timed grazing, mowing, hand digging, herbicide application, reseeding, and burning/torching. Estimated annual costs for treatment of invasive vegetation will vary based on presence and distribution of invasive vegetation and treatment methods. Develop a strategic plan for control of coyote brush on the Toto Ranch with a focus on ridge tops, around stockponds, and populations of Choris' popcorn flower. 47IPage Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 Coyote brush is well established in many of the steeper canyons and has expanded into the ridgetops and open grassland areas over time. Coyote brush encroachment in the grasslands has reduced forage production by 50 to 80 percent in many pastures. The landowner has attempted mechanical control of the coyote brush by mowing, primarily in the front pastures between the farmstead and State Route -1. The mowing has reduced the size of the individual plants but has done little to reduce the quantity and percent cover of the coyote brush. A coyote brush encroachment management plan should be developed for the Ranch. Future brush control efforts, including chemical control, should be considered following the recommendations in the coyote brush management plan to maintain the estimated carrying capacity. 481 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch 2018 Toto Ranch - Pro posed Infrastructure -- Water Distriaution Line (Existing/Propo se d) - Fenc e or Na tu ral Barrier (Existing/Pr oposed) - Spring (Ex isting/Pro posed) ii • Wa te r Tank (Ex isting/Proposed(Exact Location TBD]] 1 Propo sed Ga te to Wa te r Trough (Ex isting/Propose d [Ex ac t Location TBDII Midpeninsula Regional Op en Space District (MROSDJ M ay 2018 0 Miles G 025 0.5 While the Dlsbict striver to u se the be a va ila ble digital data, these da ta do not represe nt a le gal su rve y con are me re ly a grap h's Illus vaiion of geographi c features. SIN]W]AOHdWI 3uni onuisvmdNI a3SOdO21d - I-1I9IHX3 R luauauaellV Attachment 8 IX. Recommended Monitoring Protocols The monitoring program for the grazed rangeland pastures on the Toto Ranch is designed to ensure that the specific rangeland uses are in compliance with this Rangeland Management Plan, the agricultural conservation easement, and the land stewardship goals and objectives. It is recommended that the landowner/operator establish a routine monitoring protocol for the Toto Ranch. The following guidelines outline suggested monitoring criteria: ➢ Monitor forage utilization and livestock distribution trends to ensure appropriate RDM remains on the ground to achieve desired resource management objectives, including soil stability and water quality. ➢ Monitor the condition of livestock infrastructure, including water systems, gates and fencing, to ensure conformity with the terms of the easement and to improve rangeland and grazing management practices. ➢ Monitor non-native invasive vegetation with an emphasis on location, distribution and abundance of plant species. Describe methods for treatment or control of invasive species (grazing, herbicide application, mowing, etc.) and vegetation response to treatment methods. ➢ Monitor ponds to ensure habitat for special status wildlife species free of invasive predators such as fish and/or bullfrogs. ➢ Monitor desirable vegetation including native grasses, wildflowers, and trees with an emphasis on location, distribution, and abundance. Describe any impacts, positive or negative, observed as a result of agricultural practices (farming and/or grazing). ➢ Monitor vegetation that was planted as part of restoration or remediation work (where applicable) with an emphasis on location, distribution, abundance, and survival rate. ➢ Natural climatic changes (drought, floods, fire, etc.), geologic process, and biologic cycles beyond the landowners control should be noted and described as applicable. ➢ Stocking rates, herd type, and duration of grazing should be noted where applicable. Monitoring observations can be used as a guideline for adaptive management changes, as needed, based on the results of annual monitoring. To evaluate the above listed monitoring criteria, several baseline photo monitoring points can be retaken and a monitoring form completed for each site on an annual basis. Monitoring should occur in the fall prior to the first fall/winter rainfall of the year. Photos in Attachment -A to this plan can be utilized as photo monitoring points for the landowner/operator and be used as a reference on which to base future monitoring comparisons. A sample photo monitoring form can be found under Exhibit -G. Annual monitoring visits conducted by Midpen staff will document and photograph any concerns, trends, and general overall resource conditions observed throughout the property. 501 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 Recommended Monitoring Items: ✓ Residual Dry Matter (RDM): RDM levels can be recorded using pounds per acre and measurements can be calculated or ocular estimates dependent on the skill set and experience of the monitor. RDM average standards are based on the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) prescribed grazing performance standards. The prescribed RDM standard for moderate grazing is an average minimum of 800-1,000 pounds per acre of dry matter (two to three inches of standing RDM) on slopes of 0 to 30 percent, and 1,000-1,200 pounds per acre of dry matter (three to four inches of standing RDM) on slopes greater than thirty percent. Leaving prescribed levels of RDM on the ground surface will provide a grassland seed crop for the following season, minimize the risk for soil erosion and sedimentation, and protect water quality. Please reference Attachment -B, 'Guidelines for Residual Dry Matter on Coastal and Foothill Rangelands in California', for more detailed information on RDM standards and data collection. RDM measurements should be taken in the fall of each year at sites that are exemplary of the average RDM level in a pasture. Areas that are heavily frequented by livestock or do not adequately represent the average RDM level in a given pasture should be exempt from data collection. The following is a list of areas that should be avoided when collecting RDM samples or measurements: a. Areas that have burned b. Roads c. Corrals, and associated lanes and holding fields/traps d. Sites with low soil fertility (rock outcrops, sandy soils) or high tree cover e. Areas within 150 feet of water sources, stockponds, supplemental feeding sites f. Areas subject to damage by wildlife such as feral pigs g. Areas that are or have been recently cultivated ✓ Plant Communities Observed: Include a list of the plant communities observed within view of the photo point for example annual grassland, woodlands, wetlands, etc. Note any measurable trends or transition between plant community types from the prior year. ✓ Invasive Species Observed: Include a list of observed invasive plant species noting relative abundance, location, and density. Note any differences from the prior year. ✓ Infrastructure: Identify infrastructure relevant to the grazing and/or agricultural operation (water troughs, tanks, fencing, irrigation lines) noting location, current condition and need for adjustments or repairs. ✓ Soil Erosion: Identify areas that are at risk for erosion or where soil loss has occurred as a result of surface water flow, wind, fire, or human activity. These sites may include gullies, 511 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 bare ground exposure, landslides, ruts, or notable surface runoff. Note historic activity and any current activity. Recommend soil protection measures. ✓ Access Road Observations: Note condition of road including surface condition, vegetation cover, culverts, recent maintenance or grading, and water diversion measures that are in place. Identify any signs of erosion, rutting, or gullying on the road surface or below road, particularly downstream of channel crossings. ✓ Wildlife Observed: Identify wildlife species observed at location of the photo point including specie information and relative abundance. Observations of special status species shall be reported to the District Natural Resources Department to be included in annual reporting to regulatory agencies. ✓ Annual Precipitation: Note the rainfall, in total inches, for the season. Keeping annual precipitation records is important in determining whether rainfall amount and distribution were average, below average, or above average. In average and above average rainfall years the RDM performance standards should be met. In below average rainfall years, RDM performance standards may be exceeded, but not for more than a period of two consecutive years. Annual stocking rates and grazing duration should be adjusted annually to accommodate forage production and annual precipitation. 521 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 EXHIBIT -J GRAZING MONITORING CHECKLIST (SAMPLE) SITE NAME DATE PHOTO POINT MONITOR(S): MEASURED RAINFALL ( INCHES): [ ] < AVERAGE [ ] AVERAGE [ ] >AVERAGE MONITORING ITEMS: RESIDUAL DRY MATTER (RDM) LBs. PER ACRE: 0-30% slope >30% slope Estimated [ ] Actual Measurement [ ] PLANT COMMUNITIES OBSERVED: [ ] Annual Grassland [ ] Mixed Forest [ ] Coyote Brush/Scrub [ ] Oak Woodland [ ] Aquatic Habitat [ ] Riparian Habitat [ ] Other Communities: [ ] Native Grasses: WILDLIFE OBSERVED: PLACE PHOTO HERE 531 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 INFRASTRUCTURE / ROADS (Improvements, Condition, New Items, Future Concerns, etc.): PONDS /STREAMS /AQUATIC FEATURES (Access, Vegetation, Water Clarity, Culverts, Spillways, etc.): VEGETATION (Invasives, Natives, Thatch Amount, Encroachment, Plant Mortality, etc.): *Relative Abundances: 1 = 1-10 / 2 = 10-100 / 3 = 100+ / 4 = Dominant Vegetation Type EROSION CONCERNS (Gullying, Rilling, Slides, Surface Runoff, Bare Soil, etc.): GENERAL NOTES (Cattle info, Landscape Changes, etc.): *DISCUSSION ITEMS/CONCERNS*: 541 Page Rangeland Management Plan — Toto Ranch_2018 acumen REFEERENCES 1. Resource Management Policies, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (PDF). https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource_Management_Policies.pdf. Pages 53-57. Accessed 07/12/2017. 2. Agenda Item 7. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors Meeting #12-36. R-12-109. November 14, 2012. 3. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION: Markegard, Erik (grazing tenant). June 2017. Personal communication with Clayton Koopmann. 4. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION: Markegard, Doniga (grazing tenant). June 2017. Personal communication with Clayton Koopmann. 5. Annual Crop Report, San Mateo County. 2016. San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner's Office. 6. National Cooperative Soil Survey. Soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov. 2014. 7. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007. San Mateo County, California (CA041) Soil Data, (Version 5, Dec 10, 2007). 8. Soil Survey of Marin County, California, Volume 38. Soil Conservation Service. 1985. 9. PERSONAL OBSERVATION: Koopmann, Clayton. April 2017 site visit. 10. California Invasive Plant Council, Invasive Plant Inventory Database. http://www.cal- ipc.org/paf. August 2014. 11. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination of threatened status for the California red -legged frog. Federal Register 61(101):25813-25833. 12. Managing Rangelands to Benefit California Red -Legged Frogs and California Tiger Salamanders. Lawrence D. Ford, Pete A. Van Hoorn, Devii R. Rao, Norman J. Scott, Peter C. Trenham, and James W. Bartolome. Chapters 4, 5, and 8. September 2013. 13. Agricultural Management Plan. Sage and Associates. 2016. 14. Guidelines for Residual Dry Matter on Coastal and Foothill Rangelands in California. University of California Cooperative Extensions (UCCE). Publication 8092. 2002. 15. California Natural Diversity database last accessed online January 2018. PLAN PREPARED BY: 551Page Rangeland Management Plan -Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 Having prepared this Rangeland Management Plan (RMP), I certify that it is consistent with the purpose and requirements, as set forth in the relevant RMP Provisions. As with any plan, this RMP should be viewed as a living document, subject to periodic update and review as needed to reflect changing on -farm conditions over time. The RMP should be updated at least every ten years, or in the event of significant changes in the use, management, or ownership of the Property. r':s }l January 14, 2418 Claytri '. Koopenarirt Date Clayton W. Koopmann, B.S., Agricultural Management & Rangeland Resources; Owner Koopmann Rangeland Consulting; California Board of Forestry Registered Certified Rangeland Manager #100 Koopmann Rangeland Consulting Rangeland Resource Management Services 561 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 ATTACHMENT - A 2017 Baseline Photos: Toto Ranch Photo Point Location Map (Baseline photos can be used as reference for establishing photo -monitoring points annually by the landowner. Long term trends can be noted when comparing the baseline photo updates against the original baseline photos.) s 571 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 ATTACHMENT - B Guidelines for Residual Dry Matter Monitoring University of California s 581 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 ATTACHMENT - C Vegetation Composition Specie List (Observed): Toto Ranch 591 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 ATTACHMENT - D Recommended management approach and best management practices for California red -legged frogs on the Toto Ranch Managing Rangelands to Benefit California Red -Legged Frogs & California Tiger Salamanders — Chapters 4, 5 & 8 601 Page Rangeland Management Plan —Toto Ranch_2018 Attachment 8 Attachment 8 Appendix B. Existing Permits/Guidance IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 Existing Permits and Guidance Documents The grazing recommendations and proposed projects outlined in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Toto Ranch Range Management Plan (RMP) must be implemented in accordance with the recommendations and requirements from the following existing permits and guidance documents. • CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification No 1600-2012-0444-R3 (2018) • Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (1999) • California Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract (Planning File No. AP 84-4, Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 46568, recorded in San Mateo County Records as Document No. 85015218 on February 15, 1985) • Service Plan for the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Area (2002) • San Mateo Coastal Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report (2002) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Resource Management Policies (2018) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual (2014) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Integrated Pest Management Program Environmental Impact Report (2014) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Preliminary Use and Management Plan (2012) • Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands (2014) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Toto Ranch Bat Roost and Acoustic Survey (2018) • RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certifications for Routine Maintenance Activities for Mid -Peninsula Open Space District, Order No. R2-2010-0083 (2010) • USFWS Intra-Service Biological Opinion on the issuance of a 10(a)1(A) permit to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the San Francisco Garter Snake and California Red -Legged Frog Habitat Enhancement Projects at their Open Space Preserves in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, California (2016) • USFWS Native Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Permit (2016) This section provides a summary of all avoidance and minimization measures from the listed permits and guidance documents, discussed by biological resource type or species. A summary table of avoidance and minimization measures and the guidance documents is included in Table 2 in Section 1.5, Proposed Project Components, of this IS/MND. The resource agencies and Midpen previously identified avoidance and minimization measures to reduce the potential for take of special -status species and to reduce the impacts to biological IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 resources to a less than significant level on a number of Midpen's preserves. The avoidance and minimization measures discussed below will be implemented concurrently and in conjunction with the implementation of the RMP. Although the summary of avoidance and minimization measures in this section and table are sufficient for impact analysis under CEQA, please note that neither this section, nor Table 2 or Table 8, should be used in place of the existing guiding documents and permits listed above for regulatory/permit compliance. 1. Ponds and Wetlands Midpen is responsible for the preservation of ponds through maintenance of artificial impoundment structures, especially where ponds provide habitat for sensitive aquatic species or provide watering sources for terrestrial wildlife (Midpen 2014a). To accomplish this, Midpen will monitor, repair, modify, and maintain stock ponds (Midpen 2014a). In addition, Midpen will manage agricultural leases and easements to maximize the protection and enhancement of riparian areas and water quality (Midpen 2014a). 1A. Pond Monitoring and Annual Work Plan Annual monitoring includes a field assessment of water quality and conditions of aquatic habitats containing spawning, breeding, or rearing habitat for special -status fish, reptile, amphibian, or other aquatic species (Midpen 2014a). The results of monitoring activities will be used to identify opportunities for habitat maintenance and enhancement, and may include vegetation management and/or the development and implementation of BMPs to manage vegetation to improve watershed productivity and water quality (Midpen 2014a). An annual work plan shall be submitted to the USFWS and shall describe proposed pond enhancement or pond creation activities. The annual plan will specify the ponds where work will be performed, the dates during which the work will be performed, and a description of the work to be performed, including monitoring. The annual plan must be approved by the USFWS prior to implementation. Pond enhancement activities (emptying, dredging) should take place between August 15 and November 1 (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 1 B. Pond Berm Repairs/Maintenance Berm Repairs/Maintenance are defined as any activity that results in the repair or maintenance of an existing earthen berm structure either through vegetation clearing or minor earthwork (CDFW 2018). This task includes filling in low spots on the berm surface and removal of woody vegetation on berm faces and repair of smaller scale earthen berms that are not regulated by the Division of Dam Safety. Berm repairs may only be completed with the following restrictions. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 • Berm repairs are confined to existing berm structures and may not involve relocation or upsizing of any existing berms (CDFW 2018). • Berm repairs shall adhere to the terms and conditions of the USFWS Recovery Permit Number: TE225974-2, dated 12/22/16, and CDFW Memorandum of Understanding "Research and Recovery of San Francisco Garter Snake and California Tiger Salamander" dated April 6, 2017 (CDFW 2018). • Vegetation removal is limited to existing berm top, face, and no more than a six (6) foot buffer around the existing berm (CDFW 2018). 1C. Pond Outlet Repairs/Maintenance Repair of existing human made outlet channels and pipes associated with small scale earthen berms in order to remove blockages, replace failing or undersized outlet channels or pipes, to remove accumulated vegetation or sediment, or to place erosion control may be implemented with the following restrictions. • Work may only occur when the channel is dry adhering to the terms and conditions of the USFWS Recovery Permit Number: TE225974-2, dated 12/22/16, and CDFW Memorandum of Understanding "Research and Recovery of San Francisco Garter Snake and California Tiger Salamander" dated April 6, 2017 (CDFW 2018). • Vegetation removal is limited to no more than a six (6) foot buffer around the existing channel and may not extend into nearby natural drainages. Limited vegetation removal may occur on the pond access road to provide safe equipment access to the pond site (CDFW 2018). • No more than 200 feet of channel or 60 feet of pipe can be repaired in each location, including the sum of both banks (CDFW 2018). • A secondary outlet pipe may be installed to provide an emergency overflow in the event of blockage of the primary pond outlet/spillway (CDFW 2018). 1D. Pond Basins Repairs/Maintenance Repair of pond basins to remove accumulated sediment, invasive vegetation or to improve aquatic habitat conditions. Basin repairs may only be completed with the following restrictions. • Basin repairs involving earthwork or re -contouring may only occur when the pond is dry or when following the terms and conditions of the USFWS Recovery Permit Number: TE225974-2, dated 12/22/16, and CDFW Memorandum of Understanding "Research and Recovery of San Francisco Garter Snake and California Tiger Salamander" dated April 6, 2017 (CDFW 2018). • Basin repairs are confined to existing pond footprint and may not involve relocation or upsizing of any existing ponds (CDFW 2018). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 • Vegetation removal is limited to invasive vegetation (including native species) having a detrimental impact to aquatic habitat conditions within the existing pond basin and banks (CDFW 2018). • Wetland vegetation removal is limited to that caused by direct removal of built up vegetation or sediment removal or to allow access to the pond basin for re -contouring (CDFW 2018). 1 E. Pond Trash Cleanup This task includes removal of non -natural materials from jurisdictional lakes, ponds and channels under the following restrictions. • Hazardous materials may only be removed under the professional guidance of a hazardous materials consultant with notification to both CDFW and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (CDFW 2018). • All work is to be done with hand tools, including come -along cable pullers, except that vehicle mounted winches may be used to remove collected or very heavy materials from the channel. • Vegetation removal is limited to that caused by direct removal or minor trimming to allow access to the channel or material to be removed (CDFW 2018). • Access points may be opened no more than every 50 yards to remove materials. No grading and only limited vegetation removal shall take place to open an access point (CDFW 2018). 1 F. Preconstruction Surveys Prior to Pond Maintenance, Enhancement, and Creation Activities including mechanical dredging, excavating, and bulldozing for shoring up earthen berms or leveling spillways will require pre -activity visual surveys as well as monitoring during the activities. Pre -activity surveys will take place the day prior to the proposed maintenance or construction actions (see preconstruction surveys in Special -Status Species and Raptors and Birds sections below). In addition, biologists will determine routes to be marked for vehicle travel off of marked improved roads, extent of project disturbance, areas of ground disturbance where exclusion fencing will be required, how many biological monitors will be required during the actions based on the size of the affected area and the density of affected CRLF, and the presence of special -status species or nesting birds that may be affected by project activities (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Buffers to avoid impacts to any species or nests present can be set up during these surveys. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 Surveys and monitors will normally not be required for small scale pond maintenance activities using hand tools and fewer than five persons per one half acre (CDFW 2018). Surveys and monitors during the pond repair and maintenance activities will only be conducted by federal and state permitted biologists in accordance with their permits (CDFW 2018). 1G. Implementation of Pond Maintenance, Enhancement, and Creation Activities Pond enhancement and pond creation activities include vegetation removal, basin deepening or recontouring and sediment removal, berm repair and strengthening, and planting vegetation, all of which may be performed manually or using light and/ or heavy machinery. Draining of ponds to perform the authorized work should only occur during the part of the year when the tadpole life stage of the frog has been completed and before the subsequent breeding season. In northern California, this corresponds to a work period between August 15 and November 1 (USFWS 2016a). Within two days of the start of work on a pond, that pond will be sampled by a qualified biologist to ensure that all frogs from that pond are in the post -metamorphic stage and will be minimally affected by draining the pond (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Exclusion fencing will be placed, at a minimum, around the immediate work area where machinery will be operating. During activities involving mechanized equipment, biological monitors will maintain exclusion fencing and evaluate work performed during pond activities. Monitors are required to temporarily stop any work that they believe may harm the San Francisco Garter (SFGS). Work will not resume until a satisfactory method is agreed upon to minimize take of the CRLF or SFGS (USFWS 2016a). Vehicles traveling to and from the work site off of established ranch roads must travel slowly (5 mph) and be preceded by a monitor to ensure that snakes or other animals will not be run over by the passing vehicle. Vehicle monitors need not be trained biologists (USFWS 2016a). For vegetation removal on berms or other sites with known California red -legged frog observances, vegetation shall be cut down to 3 inches by hand tools (weed whacker, etc.). Once the ground is visible, a visual survey for the snake and frog shall be conducted. If no sensitive species are found in the area, removal of vegetation may continue by mowing or mechanized equipment very slowly with a biological monitor walking in front of the equipment to observe. If a snake or frog is observed, all activities shall cease, and the USFWS shall be notified immediately. Snakes and frogs can be relocated only if a person is permitted by the USFWS and approved by CDFW for this specific project to handle the snake or the frog (USFWS 2016a). Vegetation management activities that could result in the destabilization of stream banks or increase sediment input into waters of the State are prohibited (RWQCB 2010). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 Vegetation management activities shall not adversely impact the riparian zone, shade, canopy coverage, or habitat. Overall impacts of vegetation management activities shall improve beneficial uses (RWQCB 2010). If CRLF or SFGS are known to occur in a particular pond, cattails, tules, and emergent vegetation shall be removed by hand when feasible. If mechanized equipment is used, two biological monitors or qualified biologists shall be onsite monitoring the scoop bucket while scooping and watching each load unload. Vegetation removed shall be placed directly into a disposal vehicle and removed from the site. Vegetation shall not be piled on the ground unless it is later transferred, piece by piece, under the direct supervision of the biological monitor or qualified biologist or is going to remain on site for erosion control or slash and not be moved or disturbed. Soil shall not be stockpiled on the ground unless it is on a paved surface or staging area where there are no burrows (USFWS 2016a). In work areas containing emergent vegetation (e.g., tules, cattails), vegetation shall be inspected for California red -legged frog eggs masses prior to work. A buffer of vegetation at least 10 feet in diameter shall be left around any egg masses found. Permittee shall keep a record of any sites where egg masses are found and shall conduct vegetation removal at these sites prior to November 1 in subsequent years. Staff shall avoid entering the channel to avoid dislodging egg masses. Trimming activities shall be performed from the banks, if possible (USFWS 2016a). Shooting, trapping, and gigging of aquatic species will be conducted only by a qualified biologist with experience in the identification of CRLF. Inadvertently trapped CRLF will be released immediately upon discovery (USFWS 2016a). All staging will occur on adjacent access roads or previously disturbed areas. Soil and rip -rap will be staged in areas that have been previously disturbed (i.e., service road, turnouts, etc.). If repair activities affect the active channel, the work area will be isolated from flowing stream segments using silt fences, wattles, and/or cofferdams and restored to pre -project conditions after maintenance is complete (RWQCB 2010). Maintenance of bridges and culverts, stream bank stabilization, vegetation management and habitat enhancement will reduce the amount of sediment delivered to maintained channels and will enhance habitat for rare and endangered species (RWQCB 2010). 2. Creeks and Streams Maintenance of bridges and culverts, stream bank stabilization, vegetation management, and habitat enhancement will reduce the amount of sediment delivered to maintained channels and will enhance habitat for rare and endangered species (RWQCB 2010). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 2A. Preconstruction Surveys Prior to Maintenance, Enhancement, and Construction In and Near Creeks and Streams Preconstruction surveys prior to maintenance, enhancement, and construction in and near creeks and streams, including culvert replacement and/or repair, vegetation management, and erosion control will require pre -activity visual surveys as well as monitoring during the activities (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Pre -activity surveys will take place the day prior to the proposed maintenance or construction actions (see preconstruction surveys in Special -Status Species and Raptors and Birds sections below). In addition, biologists will determine routes to be marked for vehicle travel off marked/improved roads, extent of project disturbance, and the presence of special -status species or nesting birds that may be affected by project activities. Buffers to avoid impacts to any species or nests present can be set up during these surveys (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Surveys and monitors must be on site during the pond repair and maintenance activities will only be conducted by federal and state permitted biologists in accordance with their permits (CDFW 2018). 2B. Culvert Replacement Replacement of any existing concrete, wood, plastic (ABS, HDPE etc.) or metal pipe culvert up to 48 inches inner diameter (unless authorized to be a larger diameter by resource agencies) may be replaced with the following restrictions. • Work shall be done only when the channel is dry, except in perennial streams or during wet weather years in which the channel does not dry. In these instances, work will be scheduled during periods of low flow and must adhere to Midpen's dewatering BMPs and the associated Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certification covering the proposed work. When working within wet channels there will be a designated water quality monitor to monitor and document turbidity entering and exiting the work site (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). • The new culvert shall typically be as large as or larger than the existing culvert unless the original culvert was oversized or a natural obstruction such as bedrock is encountered. For anything other than an ephemeral drainage, the culvert shall be sized where feasible to convey a 100 -year flow or cover the entire channel width (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). • Total earthwork shall not exceed 80 cubic yards per culvert, not including any energy dissipater (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). • The new culvert shall be installed at or below grade (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 2C. Culvert Repair/Maintenance Standard practice is to clean culverts of obstructions once they are 10-20% blocked. Culverts with recurring blockages are cleaned annually, regardless of the amount of blockage. Sediment, vegetation or debris shall be removed using handtools in creeks supporting salmonids, unless other methodology is submitted to CDFW in writing during annual project notifications. Sediment, vegetation or debris may be removed with mechanized equipment in creeks that do not provide habitat for salmonids. Removal of up to a maximum amount of five (5) cubic yards per culvert is covered under some permits (CDFW 2018). Culverts that are more than 1/3 blocked may be cleaned at any time, even during periods when the channel is wet, with the following restrictions. • Up to 3 cubic yards of material may be removed, using hand tools only, under any conditions. • Removal of amounts greater than 3 cubic yards requires that the channel be dewatered first, and heavy equipment may be used with written approval from CDFW (CDFW 2018). • The total cumulative area of disturbance shall not exceed 150 feet of channel or 2,000 square feet of area, whichever is less (CDFW 2018). • After completion of the work, the disturbed area shall immediately be treated with erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) sufficient to control turbidity and sediment loss (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). • Nearby perched or otherwise unstable fill may be removed as well, up to 10 cubic yards (CDFW 2018). • No coho salmon are present (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 2D. Minor Culvert Relocation Where the Road or Trail Is Not Also Being Relocated Relocation or replacement of a culvert with a rolling dip within 25 feet of the original location to correct poor drainage conditions or improve sediment control with the following restrictions. • The total amount of earthwork may not exceed 80 cubic yards (CDFW 2018). • Work shall be done only when the channel is dry, except in perennial streams or during wet weather years in which the channel does not dry. In these instances, work will be scheduled during periods of low flow and must adhere to Midpen's dewatering BMPs and the associated Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certification covering the proposed work. When working within wet channels there will be a designated water quality monitor to monitor and document turbidity entering and exiting the work site (CDFW 2018). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 • The new culvert shall be installed at or below grade and shall include an energy dissipater or down drain as appropriate (CDFW 2018). • Where feasible, the new culvert shall accommodate a 100 -year flow or the entire channel width, whichever is greater or more feasible (CDFW 2018). • Vegetation removal is limited to no more than a five-foot buffer around the culvert and to trimming of no more than 20% of any individual tree canopy within that five- foot buffer (CDFW 2018). 2E. Removal of Existing Culverts or Replacement with Rolling Dips or Fords Removal of culverts and filling in of the associated cross drain or replacement with a rolling dip or ford, with the following restrictions. • No more than one culvert may be removed for every hundred yards of trail or road length if the culvert is in a natural channel (CDFW 2018). • If the channel is non -natural (created by the original emplacement of the culvert), any number of culverts may be removed (CDFW 2018). 2F. New Culvert Installation (Non Stream -Crossing Culverts) New culverts may be installed to maintain existing roads and trails with the following restrictions. • New culverts shall not be installed in streams but shall be limited to engineered drainage ditches associated with roads and trails (CDFW 2018). • If an existing road or trail has an inadequately drained inboard ditch (excessive length between existing ditch relief culverts or dips), 1 new ditch relief culverts (where rolling dips would be insufficient) may be placed as directed by Best Management Practices and/or by the project engineer to adequately convey storm water and reduce sediment to downstream watercourses (CDFW 2018). 2G. Ford and Swale Replacement, Repair, or Maintenance (Includes Drain Lenses and Causeways) Ford or swale replacement with culverts, bridges or small puncheons, shall be submitted to CDFW in writing through annual project notifications (CDFW 2018). Full replacement of existing fords or repair/maintenance by replacing rock and removing sediment and woody debris can be undertaken with the following restrictions. • No use of chemicals, concrete, mortar or other sealants or adhesives (CDFW 2018). • This category applies only to narrow width trails and emergency vehicle/multi-use trails where the drainage does not support salmonids (CDFW 2018). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 • The ford is not on an intermittent or perennial drainage or, if it is, the ford has been confirmed by CDFW to not be considered a barrier to the movement of aquatic organisms (CDFW 2018). • Vegetation removal is limited to no more than a five-foot buffer around the existing ford and to trimming of no more than 20% of any individual tree canopy within the five-foot buffer only (CDFW 2018). • All work shall be done when the channel is dry, except in perennial streams or during wet weather years in which the channel does not dry. In these instances, work will be scheduled during periods of low flow and must adhere to Midpen's dewatering BMPs and the associated Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certification covering the proposed work (CDFW 2018). • When working within wet channels there will be a designated water quality monitor to monitor and document turbidity entering and exiting the work site (CDFW 2018). 2H. Bank Stabilization, Replacement, Repair, and Maintenance Small bank and streambed erosion control projects must minimize water quality and erosion impacts. For repair only (not new construction), rip -rap may be replaced above or below failed sections of structures to aid in integrity of those structures. Riprap of proper size and weight to withstand high water flows will be set below grade and keyed into the bank (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). Work will be confined to the damaged or failed sections and immediate adjacent bank area affected by the damage failure. No more than 40% of bank repairs in a given year will use "hard" or impervious structure design without prior consultation with CDFW (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). Streambank areas receiving rock slope protection shall be back -filled with appropriate native or clean imported topsoil. The topsoil will fill some portions of the voids in the rock slope protection above the normal high water mark and provide a substrate for revegetation efforts. This work will be done manually using hand tools and power tools such as a toter or mule for single-track trail environments or an excavator or dump truck when needed for multiuse trails or roads (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). Other bank stabilization measures that may be employed include broadcast and hydro -seeding, riparian vegetation planting, slopes armored with rocks or sandbags staked with live willow and other bioengineering techniques such as willow staking, live willow pole drains, vegetated crib walls, log or rock weirs (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). Riparian trees shall be protected from damage to the greatest extent possible during repair and replacement (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 21. Implementation of Maintenance and Enhancement Activities Near Creeks and Streams Manage vegetation to improve watershed productivity and water quality (Midpen 2014a; RWQCB 2010). Vegetation management activities that could result in the destabilization of stream banks or increase sediment input into waters of the State are prohibited (RWQCB 2010). Vegetation management activities shall not adversely impact the riparian zone, shade, canopy coverage, or habitat (Midpen 2014a; RWQCB 2010). Utilize existing, develop, define and implement best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality (Midpen 2014a). Monitor water quality and condition of aquatic habitats containing spawning, breeding, or rearing habitat for special -status fish, reptile, amphibian, or other aquatic species (Midpen 2014a). 2J. Integrated Pest Management Associated with the Use of Chemicals In and Near Creeks and Streams When conducting chemical treatments within or with potential to affect waters and with the potential to discharge directly or indirectly to waters of the U.S., Midpen must consult with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, CDFW, and USFWS, which may require Midpen to submit a Notice of Intent to Discharge and develop an Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan (RWQCB 2010, Midpen 2014a and 2041b). The permit includes design and operational BMPs that must be implemented to reduce the level of contaminated runoff, including monitoring and reporting to document and minimize pollutant discharge and ensure pollutants do not adversely affect waters (RWQCB 2010, Midpen 2014a and 2041b). If pollutants are found to be exceeding water quality standards application must stop, or additional BMPs must be developed to bring the activities into compliance (RWQCB 2010, Midpen 2014a and 2041b). 3. Trail Construction and Maintenance (Project -Related) 3A. Routine Trail Maintenance All Routine Maintenance Activities will be done in accordance with the Midpen's Best Management Practices and Species Avoidance Measures for Routine Maintenance work. Identify, avoid, and minimize significant impacts of altered water flow on plants and animals, including aquatic organisms (Midpen 2014a). When necessary, restore hydrologic processes altered by human activity by installing erosion control materials and structures, removing culverts and drainage diversions where appropriate, and using improved drainage structures that minimize alteration of hydrology (Midpen 2014a). The appropriate resource agencies shall be contacted regarding any trail alignments or other improvements that may impact sensitive habitats, special -status species, or their habitat. Plant IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 replacement shall be native to the area and suitable for the site conditions (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). 3B. Vegetation Removal for Trail Maintenance Removal of native vegetation shall be avoided as much as possible; existing native vegetation shall only be removed as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width. The minimum horizontal clearing width from physical obstructions varies based on the type of trail but should be no less than two feet from the outer limits of the trail tread and shall be determined on a case by case basis to protect special natural features (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). Maximum vertical distance from overhanging branches shall be 12 feet on trails open to equestrian or bicycle use (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). Maximum vertical distance from overhanging branches shall be eight feet on hiking trails. Clearing shall be deteiinined on a case -by -case basis to protect special natural features. Good pruning practices should be followed when vegetation growth must be cleared. Ground cover plants and low shrubs should not be cleared beyond the original construction stand. The construction stand shall be defined as the trail tread width plus 1-2 feet from each side of the edge of the trail tread (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). Noxious plants (listed by California Invasive Pest Plant Council) shall be controlled along trails and the edges of staging areas in a timely manner. 3C. Trail Construction and Siting Any new road and trail installation project will be described in the annual work plan and approved by the USFWS prior to the start of the project (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Align new trails to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats, special -status species, and heritage and significant trees (Midpen 2014a). If any impacts to sensitive species may occur, Midpen will consult with the appropriate agencies (e.g., CDFG, USFWS, NMFS) to ensure that impacts will be avoided or mitigation is adequate (Midpen 2002a). Trail design shall include barriers to control trail use and prevent environmental damage. Barriers may include fences, vegetation, stiles, and/or fallen trees or branches (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). When parallel to a stream or riparian zone, trails shall generally be set back from the top of bank or from the outside edge of the riparian zone, whichever is greater, except where topographic, resource management, or other constraints or management objectives make such a setback not feasible or undesirable. Riparian setbacks may be adjusted on a case -by -case basis based upon advice of a qualified biologist and with the concurrence of reviewing agencies, where applicable (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 Trail crossings of streams and drainages shall be designed to minimize disturbance through the use of bridges, fords, or culverts, whichever is least environmentally damaging. Bridges and culverts shall be designed so that they visually and functionally blend with the environment and do not substantially interfere with the movement of native fish. Sufficient depth and velocity of water through the culvert shall exist in fish -bearing streams for passage of native fish and other native aquatic species during high and low flow conditions. Equestrian trail access shall be restricted at fish -bearing streams during critical times, such as during spawning, unless bridges and culverts are provided for horse use (Midpen 2002a). Trails and other improvements shall avoid wetlands and other jurisdictional waters, including seasonal wetlands, seeps, springs, and farm ponds, wherever possible (Midpen 2002a). When not possible to avoid these features, trails, roads, and staging areas, shall be constructed so that streams are not permanently diverted nor interrupted, runoff is not concentrated, and potential water pollution and stream bank erosion and sediment delivery are minimized (Midpen 2014a). A wetlands biologist will conduct reconnaissance -level surveys of all improvements in areas with potential wetlands, and a formal wetland delineation will be required for any improvements that may directly impact wetlands (Midpen 2002a). Any improvements adjacent to wetland areas will be constructed so that fills avoid and minimize wetland impacts and minimum setbacks are allowed. Where feasible, setbacks from wetlands and other jurisdictional waters shall be a minimum of 25 feet for trails and 50 feet for staging areas and other improvements (Midpen 2002a). 3D. Trail Drainage and Erosion Control This task includes removal of sediment from roads and trails to improve drainage and prevent or repair erosion. Specific applications are listed below. • Cleaning roadside/trailside ditches. Limited to no more than 10 cubic yards of soil per 100 -yard length of road/trail. Also allows associated vegetation removal (CDFW 2018). • Slough and berm removal. Over time, use of trails and roads tends to compact and lower the road or trail surface, trapping drainage on the travel surface. This task allows for occasional removal (every 3-5 years) of that material, not to exceed 5 cubic yards per 100 -yard length of road/trail and not to exceed 10 cubic yards per 100 yard length of road (CDFW 2018). • Cleaning sediment accumulation in rolling dips. Rolling dips that are constructed in a drainage are considered in jurisdiction of CDFW, and removal of up to 2 cubic yards of sediment per 100 -yard length of road/trail may occur (CDFW 2018). • Landslide removal. Up to 5 cubic yards per event may be removed or up to 2 cubic yards under any conditions with the following restrictions: - Up to 2 cubic yards of material may be removed, using hand tools only, under any conditions (CDFW 2018). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 - Removal of amounts greater than 2 cubic yards requires that the channel be dewatered first and heavy equipment may be used if submitted to CDFW in writing through annual notification process and where no coho salmon are present (CDFW 2018). - The total area of disturbance shall not exceed 150 feet of channel or 2,000 square feet of area, whichever is less (CDFW 2018). - The disturbed area shall immediately be treated with erosion control materials sufficient to control turbidity (CDFW 2018). - Nearby perched or otherwise unstable fill shall be removed as well, up to 5 cubic yards (CDFW 2018). 3E. Minor Trail Relocation Minor relocation of trails and roads may be implemented to improve drainage, remove paths from environmentally sensitive areas or achieve better stability. The following restrictions apply to narrow width trails. • The new location shall be no more than 400' upslope or downslope of the existing location (CDFW 2018). • New crossings shall be free -span bridges in creeks providing salmonid habitat or free - span bridges or mortar or concrete free fords in creek without salmonid habitat. • New culvert installation in relocated trails must be permitted by CDFW (CDFW 2018). • Vegetation removal is limited to no more than a six (6) foot buffer around the new crossing and to trimming of no more than 20% of any individual tree canopy in that six-foot buffer (CDFW 2018). • All work is to be done when the work area is dry, and the work period is outside the rainy season (CDFW 2018). • Work must be completed during the allowable work periods identified in regulatory permits (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). The following restrictions apply to relocation of other trails and roads. • The new location must be no more than 400' upslope or downslope of the existing location (CDFW 2018). • The total amount of earthwork may not exceed 7,525 cubic yards (CDFW 2018). • New crossings shall be free -span bridges in creeks providing salmonid habitat or free - span bridges or mortar or concrete free fords in creeks without salmonid habitat (CDFW 2018). • If a new culvert will be used for stream crossings, Permittee must apply for a separate/new permit from CDFW (CDFW 2018). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 • All work is to be done when the work area is dry, except in perennial streams or during wet weather years in which the channel does not dry. In these instances, work will be scheduled during periods of low flow and must adhere to Midpen's dewatering BMPs and the associated Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certification covering the proposed work. When working within wet channels there will be a designated water quality monitor to monitor and document turbidity entering and exiting the work site (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). • Vegetation removal is limited to no more than a five-foot buffer around the new crossing and to trimming of no more than 20% of any individual tree canopy with the five-foot buffer. • Existing access routes shall be used wherever suitable to minimize impacts of new construction in special -status species habitats. Realignments will be implemented where necessary to avoid adverse impacts on resources (Midpen 2002a). 3F. Trail Closures and Restricting Use Midpen shall manage human activities to control erosion. For example, areas where trails are eroding or causing erosion to adjacent areas should be abandoned, and where feasible, restored to a natural condition. Poorly designed or sited roads should be rerouted. Trails in areas prone to erosion should be closed to bicycle and equestrian use during the wet season (Midpen 2002a and 2014a). Techniques for limiting use may include, but are not limited to physical access controls and seasonal or intermittent closures (Midpen 2002a). A particular trail or other facility may need to be closed during seasonal periods to protect special -status species, to protect habitats where overuse threatens resource values, or for other reasons to protect biological resources (Midpen 2002a). Where a trail or surrounding habitat warrants special notice limiting trail use, the trail shall be clearly designated and should be equipped with use signs and appropriate barriers to discourage unauthorized use. Missing or damaged signs, gates, fences, and barriers shall be shall be repaired or replaced as soon as possible. Closure notices shall include the reason(s) for the closure, an estimate of how long the facility will be closed, and a telephone number to call for further information (Midpen 2002a). Periodic monitoring of known sensitive habitats adjacent to trails or other facilities shall be conducted to determine if unacceptable soil compaction or other adverse impacts are occurring (Midpen 2002a). If monitoring reveals that undesirable soil compaction or impact to a sensitive habitat is occurring, barriers or other appropriate measures (such as trail rerouting) shall be employed as needed to discourage off -trail use. Brush or other aesthetically acceptable barriers can be used to cover illegal trails, abandoned trails, or shortcuts to discourage use until natural vegetation returns (Midpen 2002a). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 3G. Permanent Trail Closure Should sensitive habitat be impacted such that it necessitates permanently closing a trail or staging area, a management program to rehabilitate the area will be developed (Midpen 2002a). Such a program shall include disking and replanting or other techniques appropriate to the habitat type to return the site to a natural condition and sufficiently blocking the trail with barriers to effectively prohibit use. Management shall include monitoring the site to ensure that it returns to a natural condition without the intrusion of invasive exotic plants. Management shall also include design elements, maintenance, and monitoring to ensure that erosion is minimized. Construction and maintenance of trails will require the trimming and/or removal of vegetation along the trail route and staging areas (see Vegetation Removal to Maintain Trails, Roads, or Staging Areas, below). 3H. Exclusion Fencing for Federally Listed Species If the biological monitor or qualified biologist determines that sensitive species are not within the work area, equipment or materials may be moved onto the work site and project activities may commence under the observation of the biological monitor (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). If federally listed species are found in routine maintenance activity sites using large equipment to remove sediment, they shall be excluded from the project site (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). USFWS approved exclusion fencing shall be installed around the sediment removal site, staging areas and any areas where fill may be dumped. After installation of the fence barrier, a biological monitor or qualified biologist shall daily inspect the project work area, staging and stockpiling area prior to the commencement of activities (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 31. Vegetation Removal to Maintain Trails, Roads, or Staging Areas Maintenance of trails, roads, and staging areas includes the following activities: removal of vegetation, including root masses and trimming, where a road or trail or other surface or structure is being damaged; where plant growth blocks channels or reduces water flow; to protect water supply facilities; to allow adequate site distance for safety and aesthetic reasons; to provide emergency, maintenance, and recreational access to facilities; and to meet local fire codes; Control of invasive and non-native plants; managed livestock grazing; mowing, mastication, and manual control; native vegetation plantings to enhance riparian and aquatic habitats and to treat disturbed area (CDFW 2018). Non-native vegetation removal includes management of nonnative species through mowing, mastication, manual removal, bio-control (i.e. livestock or natural predator insects), shading, removal of trees that may impact facilities next to streams, ponds or bed and banks of streams, natural resources and/or water quality, and the replanting of native vegetation. Vegetation removal will not exceed 2,000 square feet at each location unless identified in the Midpen's Integrated Pest Management Work Plan submitted annual to CDFW (CDFW 2018). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 Native vegetation planting in habitat enhancement and restoration areas includes installation of temporary irrigation, planting of locally collected native vegetation, weed control, and the installation of vegetation protective structures; and the installation of native vegetation and use of bioengineering techniques. Straw wattles, coir rolls, certified weed -free straw, erosion mats, etc. will be used to prevent erosion, minimize bank impacts, and prevent soil loss. If installed in an area where impacts to listed species could occur, wildlife friendly netting shall be utilized (CDFW 2018). There shall be no vegetation removal in excess of what is necessary to allow the level of access needed and to accommodate routine maintenance activities, passage of emergency vehicles where appropriate, and for defensible space or public safety. No vegetation shall be removed by excavation or cutting off below the soil unless approved in writing by CDFW (CDFW 2018). Invasive plant material removed during work activities shall be appropriately handled in order to prevent spread of invasive species including the following. • Suitable onsite disposal areas shall be identified to prevent the spread of weed seeds (CDFW 2018). • Invasive plant material shall be rendered nonviable when being retained onsite. Permittee shall desiccate or decompose plant material until it is nonviable. Depending on type of plant, disposed plant material can be left out in the open as long as roots are not in contact with moist soil, or can be covered with a tarp to prevent material from blowing or washing away (CDFW 2018). • Permittee shall monitor all sites where invasive plant material is disposed on -site and treat any newly emerged invasive plants (CDFW 2018). • When transporting invasive plant material off -site for disposal, the plant material shall be contained in enclosed bins, heavy duty bags, or a securely covered truck bed. All vehicles used to transport invasive plant material shall be cleaned after each use (CDFW 2018). 4. Special -Status Plants 4A. Preconstruction Special -Status Plant Survey Conduct surveys for special -status plants during the appropriate season before significant site - specific development or any unusual anticipated increase in use. Modify the project or use to avoid impacting such plants (Midpen 2014a). Prior to the start of project activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct protocol level surveys for sensitive plant species during the peak blooming period (CDFW 2018). Survey methodology available at: http://www.wildlife.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/Protocols_for Surveying_and_ Evaluating_Impacts.pdf. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 4B. Choris' Popcorn Flower: Rare Plant Exclusion In jurisdictional areas having suitable habitat characteristics and within 1/4 mile of known occurrence, rare plant exclusion measures shall be implemented as described below. Rare Plant Exclusion If Choris' popcorn flowers or other rare plant species are found or known to occur near any project area, the location shall be flagged, and Midpen avoidance and protection measures, which also conform to CDFW and USFWS MOUs and permits, will be implemented (these measures are discussed in Table 1A, Table 2, the Biological Resources section and Biological Mitigation Measure 4B). Avoidance measures may include exclusionary fencing and establishing buffer zones; all rare plants and associated buffer zones shall be avoided during maintenance activities (CDFW 2018). Special -Status Animals 5. Salmonids 5A. General Anadromous Fish Avoidance and Minimization Measures No routine maintenance activity requiring dewatering shall be undertaken in creeks where known occurrences of coho salmon exist. Permittee shall notify the CDFW and apply for a separate/new permit (CDFW 2018). Avoidance and minimization measures that apply to creeks and streams (see above) must be undertaken in coho- and steelhead-bearing creeks and streams. 5B. Enhance Habitat for Anadromous Fish Inventory and assess stream reaches accessible to anadromous fish to identify impediments to fish passage and opportunities for habitat enhancement. Remove artificial barriers to fish passage where removal will enhance spawning and rearing habitats (Midpen 2014a). Enhance spawning and rearing habitats for native fisheries through restoration. Prioritize restoration and enhancement of areas providing habitat to sensitive species. 5C. Monitor Sensitive Fish Species Monitor sensitive fish species populations in Midpen waters (see Table 2). 5D. Integrated Pest Management In and Near Fish Habitat To minimize impacts to coho and steelhead resulting from implementation of Midpen's IPMP, the following measures apply. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 • Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical IPM treatments in an area that is federally designated critical habitat for central California coast coho salmon or central California coast steelhead, the Midpen will consult with the USFWS, NMFS and CDFW as appropriate pursuant to ESA/CESA (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). • Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical IPM treatments in occupied habitat of central California coast coho salmon or central California coast steelhead, the Midpen will consult with USFWS, NMFS, and CDFW (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). 6. California Red -Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake As discussed in their species profiles, CRLF and SFGS often co-occur in the same aquatic and upland habitats because they both utilize aquatic habitats for foraging, breeding, cover, and dispersal, and because CRLF are a preferred prey species of SFGS. Typically, the shared habitats are in ponds and surrounding grasslands. In addition, CRLF also utilize creeks and streams for foraging, breeding, and dispersal habitat, whereas SFGS do not. CRLF are known to occur at Toto Ranch, and SFGS are known to occur within 1 mile of Toto Ranch. Therefore, a number of management documents and regulatory permits have combined avoidance and minimization measures for these species. This section will do the same, with the most conservative measures utilized where effort and timing are similar. Requirements specific to either CRLF or SFGS are called out where appropriate or where the differences in requirements are significant. 6A. Compliance with Federal Permits for CRLF and SFGS Any project activities must comply with USFWS Recovery Permit Number: TE225974-2, dated 12/22/16, and CDFW Memorandum of Understanding "Research and Recovery of San Francisco Garter Snake and California Tiger Salamander" dated April 6, 2017 (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a). 6B. Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Ponds and Creeks and Streams To protect CRLF and SFGS, avoidance and minimization measures that apply to ponds and creeks and streams (see above) must be undertaken in all ponds, creeks, and streams at Toto Ranch. 6C. Yearly Work Proposals for CRLF and SFGS Enhancement Per USFWS and CDFW permits, annual work proposals must be submitted to these agencies. All maintenance activity proposals involving mechanized equipment and associated monitoring proposals must be approved by CDFW and USFWS prior to implementation (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a). The annual work plan will include, as appropriate and applicable: • an explanation of the purpose of each site -specific activity planned for that calendar year, IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 • the names and permit numbers of personnel conducting the work, • a clear description of the methods to be used, • the number and dates of activities, • a map (at a minimum, a 1:24,000 scale U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographical map) depicting the location and boundary of the activity area(s), • identification of existing habitat conditions in terms of vegetative composition/cover and the presence (density) of potential aestivation habitat or escape cover (e.g., burrows, rock formations, etc.) including pond buffer zones and refugia areas proposed for controlled bum activities, and • identification of specific recovery tasks to be accomplished by each proposed activity (USFWS 2016b). 6D. Biological Monitors Biological monitor(s) and/or qualified biologist(s) shall remain on the project site while routine maintenance activities are being conducted. Biological monitor(s) and/or qualified biologists shall be on the project site while routine maintenance activities are being conducted at these sites (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a). The minimum number of qualified biological monitors required at each pond site will be determined in advance by either the ranch manager or a permitted biological consultant based on pond size, the amount and complexity of work to be performed, and the equipment to be used. This number of monitors will be approved by USFWS prior to the start of any work (USFWS 2016b). Only biological monitors specifically authorized by the USFWS and CDFW to handle SFGS or CRLF (normally these will be individuals holding a federal recovery permit for the species) will be allowed to handle, transport, and relocate individuals of these species. When transporting individual SFGS and CRLF, precautions will be taken to ensure that the animals are not over- stressed and are maintained in safety. Such measures include: keeping animals in a cool, dark, and safe location (snake bag for SFGS and terrarium for CRLF), providing adequate hydration, maintaining a stable cool temperature to avoid over -heating, keeping animals isolated to prevent them from harming one another, and ensuring holding tanks or bags are kept clean to prevent the spread of any diseases (USFWS 2016b). Prior to the start of work, areas will be identified by the biological monitor and approved by the USFWS and CDFW as acceptable locations to which San Francisco garter snake and the California red -legged frog may be relocated if these species are encountered within a work area. Relocation areas will be a minimum of 500 feet from the boundary of any work area and will not include staging areas or roads. No CRLF or SFGS will be removed from Toto Ranch or maintained in captivity overnight without prior notification and written approval by USFWS and CDFW unless the animal is in need of emergency medical assistance. Medical assistance will be IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 provided to injured animals by a USFWS-approved, certified wildlife veterinarian familiar with amphibian and reptile care (USFWS 2016b). 6E. Preconstruction Meeting and Construction Training A chain -of -command for field crews and other on -site personnel will be established prior to commencement of all activities. This program will establish the biological monitors as the persons in charge of, and responsible for, all facets of project implementation. The specific chain -of -command will be defined at the pre -activity meeting to be held immediately prior to the initiation of work (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). In addition, biological monitors will provide biological awareness training to all persons prior to beginning work. The educational program will discuss the sensitivity of CRLF and SFGS and their habitat, and include visual materials on species identification, procedures to follow when encountering any CRLF and/or SFGS species in the work area, penalties for take, and all work restrictions within the Midpen. In addition, pocket -sized photo cards depicting CRLF and SFGS will be distributed to all personnel. To maintain safety and limit any chance of take or habitat disturbance, a simple system of hand signals will be established for the monitors, truck drivers, equipment operators, and field personnel to use during habitat enhancement and related activities (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6F. Stop Work Authority for CRLF and SFGS The biological monitor and/or qualified biologist shall have the authority to halt work activities that may affect CRLF adults, tadpoles, or egg masses and SFGS adults or nests/eggs until they can be moved out of harm's way (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6G. CRLF and SFGS Preconstruction Surveys Prior to and within 48 hours of the planned start of project activities in and near ponds, wetlands, creeks, and streams, a focused survey for CRLF and SFGS using agency approved protocol shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if they are in the area. If CRLF and/or SFGS are found, CDFW and USFWS shall be notified immediately to determine the correct course of action. No more than 24 hours prior to conducting pond enhancement activities, visual surveys will be conducted by walking at least a 50 -foot buffer area around the pond in an attempt to locate individual SFGS and CRLF (USFWS 2016b). A trained and permitted biologist will capture, transfer, and release in a safe area any SFGS and CRLF deemed to be in danger of being harmed by the prescribed enhancement activities. If a CRLF or SFGS is located during the pre-treatment surveys but escapes capture, the area where the snake or frog was lost will be marked by flag and a 50 -foot (15 meter) radius will be actively patrolled during the work. If necessary, individual SFGS may be held in captivity in a pillow case for less than 24 hours and may later be released near the point of capture after the work has been completed. After the pre-treatment survey, an IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 avoidance strategy will be devised and presented to all individuals involved in the pond enhancement prior to starting any activities. The number of SFGS and CRLF encountered and transferred to safe areas or held in captivity during treatment will be reported to USFWS, and each individual SFGS will be photographed for use in identification (USFWS 2016b). In work areas containing emergent vegetation (e.g., tules, cattails), vegetation shall be inspected for CRLF eggs masses prior to work. If work cannot be postponed, a buffer of vegetation at least 10 feet in diameter shall be left around any egg masses found. Permittee shall keep a record of any sites where egg masses are found and shall conduct vegetation removal at these sites prior to November 1 in subsequent years (CDFW 2018). During the surveys the lead biologist will mark any rodent burrows within the immediate work area that would be destroyed or otherwise affected by machinery or other maintenance activities and determine if they should be hand excavated to extract any CRLF or SFGS. Any SFGS found will be held in captivity until the activity is completed for the day using appropriate measures to avoid excessive stress of the animal (see Biological Monitors, above). Captive SFGS will be returned to the point of capture or to the nearest cover for release after the pond work has been completed for the day (USFWS 2016a). 6H. Egg Mass Avoidance Staff shall avoid entering the channel to avoid dislodging egg masses. Vegetation trimming activities shall be performed from the banks, if possible (CDFW 2018). 61. Seasonal Work Period in Ponds If CRLF and/or SFGS are found in the pond and water is present in the pond, sediment removal and berm or outfall repair activities shall be performed from August 15 to November 1 (CDFW 2018). 6J. Agency Notification of Enhancement Activities for CRLF and SFGS Dredging and de -watering operations shall be submitted to and approved by CDFW prior to commencement of activities (CDFW 2018). 6K. Vegetation Removal by Mechanized Equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS Sensitive Sites For vegetation removal on berms or other sites within 1 mile of known CRLF and/or SFGS occurrences, vegetation shall be cut down to 3 inches by hand tools. Once the ground is visible, a visual survey for CRLF and/or SFGS shall be conducted. If no sensitive species are found in the area, removal of vegetation may continue by mowing or mechanized equipment very slowly with a biological monitor walking in front of the equipment to observe. If a CRLF and/or SFGS is observed, all activities shall cease and CDFW and USFWS shall be notified immediately. CRLF and/or SFGS can be relocated only if a person is peiiiutted to handle CRLF and/or SFGS by the USFWS and approved by CDFW (CDFW 2018). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 6L. Vegetation Removal at Ponds If CRLF are found, cattails, tules, and emergent vegetation shall be removed by hand when feasible. If mechanized equipment is used, one or more a two biological monitors or qualified biologists shall be onsite monitoring the scoop bucket while scooping and watching each load unload. CDFW shall be notified during the annual project notification process when mechanized equipment will be used for vegetation removal at ponds (CDFW 2018). 6M. CRLF and SFGS Exclusion for Sediment Removal with Large Equipment If CRLF and/or SFGS are found during preconstruction surveys, and routine maintenance requires the use of large equipment to remove sediment, CRLF and SFGS shall be excluded from the project site. USFWS/CDFW-approved exclusion fencing shall be installed around the sediment removal site, staging areas and any areas where fill may be dumped. After installation of the fence barrier, a biological monitor or qualified biologist shall daily inspect the project work area, staging and stockpiling area prior to the commencement of activities. If the biological monitor or qualified biologist determines that sensitive species are not within the work area, equipment or materials may be moved onto the work site and project activities may commence under the observation of the biological monitor (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6N. No Stockpiling of Vegetation If CRLF and/or SFGS are found, vegetation removed shall be placed directly into a disposal vehicle and removed from the site. Vegetation shall not be piled on the ground unless it is later transferred, piece by piece, under the direct supervision of the biological monitor or qualified biologist or is going to remain on site for erosion control or slash and not be moved or disturbed (CDFW 2018). 60. Vehicle Restrictions In areas within 1 mile of CRLF and/or SFGS occurrences, any vehicle parked on site for more than 15 minutes shall be inspected by the biological monitor or qualified biologist before it is moved to ensure that CRLF and/or SFGS have not moved under the vehicle (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Corridors for travel of vehicles and heavy machinery to the pond site will be established at least 24 hours in advance of the proposed work. Corridors that are not established on marked improved roads (paved or unpaved) require special consideration for use by any vehicle. During the use of these off -road corridors by vehicles and machinery, a monitor will proceed directly before the vehicle or machinery to ensure all SFGS, CRLF, and observable wildlife is cleared from the pathway of the oncoming vehicle. Monitors will signal vehicles to stop if a CRLF or SFGS is on the pathway and will allow the animal to clear the pathway by its own direction. Any handling of SFGS or CRLF must only be done by a qualified permitted individual. Measures will be taken to minimize the number of vehicles allowed on the property. All vehicles involved with IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 the site -specific work that are not transported to the work site will be retained in a prearranged, marked parking area in a clearing as close to the main road as possible. At least one monitor will ensure wildlife is clear from the parking area while vehicles are arriving and leaving. All vehicles must stay on designated roads (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Refueling of equipment will be conducted on heavy -gauge tarps made of chemically resistant polypropylene or other impervious material with vertical sides for spill containment. These containment tarps will be set up under the equipment prior to servicing or refueling. Once the work is completed, the tarp and its contents must be immediately removed from the property and all contaminants properly disposed of off -site. BMPs will be implemented immediately in case of fuel spillage. All vehicles entering the site will carry a functional fire extinguisher (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6P. No Stockpiling of Soil Soil shall not be stockpiled on the ground unless it is on a paved surface or staging area with no burrows (CDFW 2018). 6Q. Cease Activities for CRLF/SFGS in the Work Area If CRLF and/or SFGS enters the work area, all work shall stop until the animal leaves on its own. Only biological monitors specifically authorized by USFWS and CDFW to handle the CRLF or SFGS will be allowed to handle, transport, and relocate individuals of these species. The biological monitor and/ or qualified biologist may halt work activities that may affect the CRLF or SFGS until they can be moved out of harm's way. When transporting individual CRLF or SFGS precautions will be taken to ensure that the animals are not over -stressed and are maintained in safety. Such measures include: keeping animals in a cool, dark, and safe location (snake bag for snakes and terrarium for frogs), providing adequate hydration, maintaining a stable cool temperature to avoid over -heating, keeping animals isolated to prevent them from harming one another, and ensuring holding tanks or bags are kept clean to prevent the spread of any diseases (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6R. California Red -Legged Frog Emergency Salvage and Recovery Any red -legged frog egg masses or larvae observed in direct threat of drying or desiccation due to low water levels (e.g., egg mass found on high ground above the water level of a pond or stream or larvae found within a pond or stream that is currently very low and is known to dry or appears that it may dry prior to July 1) may be moved first into the pond or stream of origin (if no threat of drying) or into the nearest pond or stream reach having similar ecological conditions to those at the pond or stream reach of origin. Juvenile and adult red -legged frogs in direct threat of mortality or injury from human caused events (entrapment in human made structures, or in the IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 direct path of equipment during a restoration project) may also be moved to the nearest suitable aquatic feature (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Movement shall only occur to relocation sites within the same watershed (same sub -watershed preferred) within the same Preserve whenever possible. Exceptions shall be notified to the USFWS prior to conducting salvage activities. Dip and seine nets will be used to capture egg masses or larvae, and small containers will be used for transport. 6S. CRLF and SFGS Reporting Requirements Both USFWS and CDFW will be notified immediately if any SFGS or CRLF are injured or killed during the course of any enhancement or management activities. All other incidental observations will be reported in the daily field monitoring form (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6T. Integrated Pest Management in CRLF and SFGS Habitat Because Midpen's IPMP will be implemented at Toto Ranch in conjunction with the RMP, the following avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented. • Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical IPM treatments in an area that is both federally designated critical habitat and suitable aquatic habitat for CRLF or SFGS, Midpen will consult with the USFWS and CDFW as appropriate pursuant to ESA/CESA. Appropriate measures will be developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFW to ensure there is no loss of critical habitat for these species, or that unavoidable loss of critical habitat will be replaced through habitat enhancement or restoration. Such measures may include may include avoidance of breeding habitat, limiting activities to manual removal of vegetation, conducting activities outside the breeding season, or relocation and mitigation (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). • Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical IPM treatments within 15 feet of occupied habitat for CRLF or SFGS, Midpen will consult with USFWS and CDFW. Appropriate measures will be developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFW to ensure there is no take of these species, or that unavoidable take is fully compensated for through for through habitat enhancement or restoration activities, or purchase of mitigation credits. Shooting, trapping, and gigging of aquatic species will be conducted only by a qualified biologist with experience in the identification of CRLF and SFGS. Inadvertently trapped CRLF or SFGS will be released immediately upon discovery (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). • If permanent loss of federally designated critical habitat cannot be avoided, compensation will be provided through protection and enhancement of habitat within Midpen properties, purchase of offsite mitigation credits, and/or contribution to IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 regional conservation and recovery efforts for the species as determined in consultation with USFWS and CDFW (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). 7. San Francisco Dusky -Footed Woodrat (SFDW) In general, no grazing management or improvement projects proposed in the RMP will occur in chaparral or riparian habitat where SFDW and their nests occur. However, impacts to woodrat nests should be avoided during all maintenance and/or construction work. 7A. SFDW Protection Preconstruction Survey A preconstruction survey for SFDW nests will be conducted prior to all construction and/or maintenance work near riparian and/or chaparral or scrub habitats. All routine maintenance work in the proximity of SFDW and/or their nests shall adhere to the BMPs in Exhibit B (CDFW 2018). 8. Special -Status Bat Species No special -status bat species were detected during 2018 bat surveys, although these species may occur at Toto Ranch. If special -status bat species may be found in a project area that has impacts to potential roosting habitat, avoidance measures shall be implemented according to Midpen's bat BMPs (Midpen n.d.). These Bat BMPs are designed to avoid impacts to bat species and include the following actions. 8A. Preconstruction Surveys In areas of suitable habitat, preconstruction surveys are required for the following bat species: Pallid bat, Townsend's big -eared bat, and western red bat (CDFW 2018). If signs of bats are evident and removal or disturbance of bats is necessary, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for roosting bats prior to beginning work. Surveys will consist of daytime pedestrian surveys to look for visual signs of bats (e.g., guano), and if determined necessary, evening emergence surveys to note the presence or absence of bats. If evidence of bat roosting is found, the number and species of roosting bats will be determined. If no evidence of bat roosts is found, then no further study will be required. Bat detectors and/or infrared detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts but are not required (Midpen n.d.). 8B. Tree Removal If bat roosting sites are located in trees to be removed, such removal will occur outside of the April through August nursery season if possible (CDFW 2018; Midpen 2014b and 2014c). If removal of trees greater than sixteen inches diameter at breast height (dbh) during the April through August nursery season cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for roosting bats where suitable large trees are to be removed. Surveys will consist of daytime pedestrian surveys to look for visual signs of bats (e.g., guano), and if determined necessary, evening emergence surveys to note the presence or absence of bats. If evidence of roosting bats IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 is found, the number and species of roosting bats will be determined. If no evidence of bat roosts is found, then no further study will be required (CDFW 2018; Midpen 2014b and 2014c). Bats go into a deep torpor period November 16 through February 15, no building or tree work (over 16" dbh) is allowable during this time (Midpen n.d.). 8C. Non -Tree Roost Exclusion If surveys determine that special -status bats or maternity roosts are present and must be removed during the April through August nursery season, a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW. The exclusion plan will describe the method of exclusion, which may include the use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not re-enter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed by a bat expert to contain no bats. No bats will be excluded until the plan is approved by CDFW and alternative roosting habitat is available. The bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the site is closed (CDFW 2018; Midpen 2014b and 2014c). If individual non -breeding and non -special -status bats are present, a qualified biologist may be retained to remove the bats and work may proceed year-round. If maternity roosting or special - status bat species are present at any time, no work is allowed without first excluding and providing alternate roost site(s) outside of the breeding season (Midpen n.d.). Alternate roost site(s) must be determined by Midpen Natural Resources staff or a consulting biologist and submitted to California Department of Fish and Wildlife before installation (Midpen n.d.). Whenever possible alternative roost site(s) will be provided 6 months to 1 year prior to the removal of maternity roosting habitat to allow bats adequate time to discover the new locations (Midpen n.d.). Alternative roost site(s) shall be monitored for occupancy by a qualified biologist within one year of installation. Contractors, Midpen staff, and others working in areas known to support maternity roost site(s) and/or special -status bat species will be provided biological awareness training by a qualified biologist prior to the commencement of work. Because bats go into a deep torpor period November 16 through February 15, no building or tree work (over 16" dbh) is allowable during this time (Midpen n.d.). 9. Raptors and Birds 9A. Nesting Bird Surveys If project activities are scheduled during the nesting season of raptors and migratory birds, a focused survey for active nests of such birds shall be conducted by the qualified biologist within 15 days prior to the beginning of project -related activities (CDFW 2018). Surveys shall be conducted in all suitable habitat located at project work sites and in staging and storage areas. The minimum survey radii surrounding the work area shall be the following: i) 250 feet for passerines; ii) 500 feet for other small raptors such as accipiters; iii) 1,000 feet for larger IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 raptors such as buteos. The bird survey methodology and the results of the survey shall be submitted to the CDFW prior to commencement of project activities (CDFW 2018). Nesting seasons shall be defined as followed: i) March 15 to August 30 for smaller bird species such as passerines; ii) February 15 to August 30 for raptors (CDFW 2018). 9B. Active Nests An active nest is defined as a nest having eggs or chicks present, or a nest that adult birds have staked a territory and are displaying, constructing a nest, or are repairing an old nest. If active nests are found and work cannot be postponed, Midpen shall utilize the buffers and methods identified above (see Nesting Bird Surveys) and notify consult with the CDFW and the USFWS regarding appropriate action to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the FGC. If a lapse in project -related work of 15 days or longer occurs, another focused survey shall be conducted before project work is reinitiated. If active nests are found, Midpen shall consult with the CDFW and the USFWS prior to resumption of project activities (CDFW 2018). 9C. Active Nest Buffers Active nest sites shall be designated as "Ecologically Sensitive Areas" and protected (while occupied) during project activities with the establishment of flagging or a fence barrier surrounding the nest site. The minimum distances of the protective buffers surrounding each identified nest site shall be the following: i) 500 feet for large raptors such as buteos; ii) 250 feet for small raptors such as accipiters; iii) 250 feet for passerines. A biological monitor or qualified biologist shall monitor the behavior of the birds (adults and young, when present) at the nest site to ensure that they are not disturbed by project -related activities. Nest monitoring shall continue during project - related construction work until the young have fully fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents and have left the nest site, as determined by a biological monitor (CDFW 2018). 9D. Nesting Habitat Removal or Modification No trees or shrubs shall be disturbed that contain active bird nests until all eggs have hatched, and young have fully fledged (are no longer being fed by the adults and have completely left the nest site). To avoid potential impacts to tree or shrub -nesting birds, any trimming or pruning of trees or shrubs shall be conducted during the time period of September 16 to February 14 unless a preconstruction nesting bird survey has been conducted by a qualified biologist. No habitat removal or modification shall occur within the Ecologically Sensitive Area fenced nest zone even if the nest continues to be active beyond the typical nesting season for the species (the fencing must stay up until the young have fully fledged and will no longer be adversely affected by the project (CDFW 2018). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 10. Integrated Pest Management All invasive plant and animal removal will be conducted in accordance with Midpen's guidance documents, best management practices, avoidance and minimization measures, and mitigation measures identified in the Midpen Integrated Pest Management Program and EIR, existing permits, and CRLF injunction (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 10A. Invasive Animal Control No burrow fumigants, insecticides, or rodenticides will be used in habitats where federally listed species may occur. Only herbicides and fungicides that are part of a formal integrated pest management plan may be used, and only if they are used in accordance with the guidelines on the label and if they comply with the restrictions listed in the critical habitat designation and with the laws and regulations of the State of California (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Eradication of invasive animals (e.g. non-native fish, bullfrogs) by shooting, trapping, or gigging for the purpose of reducing predation on or competition with CRLF, must be authorized in writing by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office prior to conducting removal activities (USFWS 2016a). 108. Vegetation Management Prior to conducting non-native (e.g., pampas grass) and native (e.g., cattail, cocklebur) plant removal or treatments (e.g., spraying with herbicide or fungicide, cutting, pulling, digging out), the permittee will make every reasonable attempt to ensure that SFGS and CRLF are not hidden within the plant or the residual plant matter to be treated (USFWS 2016b). All vegetation management activities that could result in the runoff of herbicides that are not registered for aquatic use into waters of the State are prohibited (RWQCB 2010). The Discharger shall select and apply herbicides according to the product label directions and uses approved by the U.S. EPA and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and per the CRLF injunction and applicable provisions of this Order (RWQCB 2010). Only herbicides and surfactants registered for aquatic use will be applied to aquatic areas or within the banks of channels. Herbicides will not be applied during or within 24 hours prior to rain (RWQCB 2010). 11. Grazing 11A. Use Grazing for Vegetation Management Livestock will be used for vegetation management to avoid the use of chemical herbicides, to control invasive vegetation, and promote the growth of native vegetation. Where livestock is used in IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 association with a specific routine maintenance project, vegetation removal will not exceed 2,000 square feet (0.05 acres) in size, 150 adjacent linear feet, or the minimum necessary to complete the operation, whichever is less, and livestock shall be managed and prohibited from creating or worsening existing erosion and sedimentation to flowing stream channels (RWQCB 2010). Avoid seeding with rye grass (unless sterile), "Zorro" fescue, Harding grass, or other non-native aggressive plants after fires to control erosion (Midpen 2014a). 11B. Use Grazing for Habitat Enhancement Manage native grassland sites to encourage reestablishment and perpetuation of California native grasses (Midpen 2014a). Manage oak woodland to encourage reestablishment and perpetuation of California native oaks (Midpen 2014a). Control invasive non-native plants (Midpen 2014a). Encourage Midpen tenants to use native plants for landscaping to provide natural habitat (Midpen 2014a). Protect and enhance the habitats and populations of special -status plant species (Midpen 2014a). Identify and eliminate barriers (e.g. remove unnecessary fences, old barb wire, and other barriers) and provide safe crossings (e.g. protect established wildlife crossings and use wildlife friendly fencing) to enhance wildlife movement on a regional basis (Midpen 2014a). 11C. Grazing by Horses All domestic livestock production including horses, goats, chickens, pigs, turkeys, etc. should be confined to the Agricultural Lease area. Up to four (4) horses may be kept on the property. Boarding outside horses should be prohibited, and breeding, training, raising and selling horses (Horse Operations) are not considered agricultural uses and are not recommended on the Toto Ranch. Horses should be restricted to the Agricultural Lease area and associated small pastures; horses should not be permitted to graze rangeland pastures outside of the designated Agricultural Lease area. However, horses may be used for cattle operations in rangeland. A separate lease will be prepared for the Agricultural Lease portion of the ranch (Midpen 2014a). IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 Appendix C. Air Quality IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 13 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair San Mateo County, Winter 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric 1 Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population City Park • • 0.73 Acre 0.73 31, 798.80 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Rural Climate Zone 5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 0.029 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - schedule from client Off -road Equipment - Based on description from client - mostly hand tools, possibly drill Off -road Equipment - Precipitation Freq (Days) 70 Operational Year 2022 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 13 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter Table Name 1 Column Name Default Value 1 New Value tblConstructionPhase • NumDays i 100.00 • 10.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate I 6/9/2021 1/15/2021 I tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate I 1/21/2021 1/4/2021 I tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType F Trenchers tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 2.00 • 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment ▪ OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 2.00 • 1.00 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel • Urban Rural 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 13 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 •i 0.6225 5.9273 5.3285 8.5700e- 0.1373 0.3685 0.5059 0.0371 0.3391 0.3762 • 0.0000 i 848.9505 848.9505 0.2163 0.0000 854.3591 003 • Maximum 0.6225 5.9273 5.3285 8.5700e- 0.1373 0.3685 0.5059 0.0371 0.3391 0.3762 0.0000 848.9505 848.9505 0.2163 0.0000 854.3591 11 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year - lb/day lb/day 2021 •1 0.6225 5.9273 5.3285 8.5700e- 0.1373 0.3685 0.5059 0.0371 0.3391 0.3762 • 0.0000 i 848.9505 848.9505 0.2163 0.0000 854.3591 i 003 ; • 1 i Maximum 0.6225 5.9273 5.3285 8.5700e- 0.1373 0.3685 0.5059 0.0371 0.3391 0.3762 0.0000 848.9505 848.9505 0.2163 0.0000 854.3591 II 003 1 I ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 13 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area •' 1.6500e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 I 1.7000e- 003 005 004 004 004 J J J J .1 J J • J J .1 T Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 e J J J J J J J ; J J J • Mobile •i 0.0220 0.0696 0.2626 8.8000e- 0.0870 7.4000e- 0.0877 0.0233 6.9000e- 0.0240 • i 88.9938 88.9938 3.2600e- 89.0753 004 004 004 ; • 003 Total 0.0236 0.0696 0.2627 8.8000e- 0.0870 7.4000e- 0.0877 0.0233 6.9000e- 0.0240 88.9939 88.9939 3.2600e- 0.0000 89.0755 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area •' 1.6500e- 0.0000 17.0000e- 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 I 1.7000e- 003 005 . 004 004 i 004 .r J J J J J J J J i J J J Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r. . J J J J J J J J . J J J • Mobile •i 0.0220 0.0696 0.2626 8.8000e- 0.0870 7.4000e- 0.0877 0.0233 6.9000e- 0.0240 • 88.9938 88.9938 3.2600e- 89.0753 004 004 004 ; 003 Total 0.0236 0.0696 0.2627 8.8000e- 0.0870 7.4000e- 0.0877 0.0233 6.9000e- 0.0240 88.9939 88.9939 3.2600e- 0.0000 89.0755 11 004 004 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 13 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 :Building Construction -Building Construction :1/4/2021 :1/15/2021 5: 10: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Building Construction Building Construction Building Construction Building Construction :Trenchers :Cranes r :Forklifts ; :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 ; 8.001 78: 0.50 .1 4 0 4.001 231: 0.29 4 0 6.001 89: 0.20 F r 1 : 8.00: 97: 0.37 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Building Construction 2' 13.00' 5.00' 0.00' 10.80' 6.60' 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Page 6 of 13 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road -i 0.5697 5.4079 4.8666 6.4800e- 0.3668 0.3668 0.3374 0.3374 • i 627.8226 627.8226 0.2031 632.8988 Y 1 003 • Total 0.5697 5.4079 4.8666 6.4800e- 0.3668 0.3668 0.3374 0.3374 627.8226 627.8226 0.2031 632.8988 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 13 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter 3.2 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Hauling -i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0156 0.4959 0.2217 1.1900e- 0.0305 1.1300e- 0.0317 8.7800e- 1.0800e- 9.8600e- • i 130.8744 130.8744 0.0116 131.1655 003 003 003 003 003 J .1 .1 .1 .1 J .1 gr J .1 J t Worker •u 0.0372 0.0235 0.2403 9.0000e- 0.1068 6.2000e- 0.1074 0.0283 5.7000e- 0.0289 • i 90.2536 90.2536 1.6500e- 90.2948 004 004 004 003 Total 0.0528 0.5194 0.4619 2.0900e- 0.1373 1.7500e- 0.1391 0.0371 1.6500e- 0.0388 221.1280 221.1280 0.0133 221.4603 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.5697 5.4079 4.8666 6.4800e- 0.3668 0.3668 0.3374 0.3374 • 0.0000 i 627.8226 627.8226 0.2031 632.8988 003 ; • Total 0.5697 5.4079 4.8666 6.4800e. 0.3668 0.3668 0.3374 0.3374 0.0000 627.8226 627.8226 0.2031 632.8988 11 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 13 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter 3.2 Building Construction - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0156 0.4959 0.2217 1.1900e- 0.0305 1.1300e- 0.0317 8.7800e- 1.0800e- 9.8600e- 6 i 130.8744 130.8744 0.0116 131.1655 003 003 003 003 003 J .1 .1 .1 .1 J .1 gr J .1 J t Worker •1 0.0372 0.0235 0.2403 9.0000e- 0.1068 6.2000e- 0.1074 0.0283 5.7000e- 0.0289 6 i 90.2536 90.2536 1.6500e- 90.2948 004 004 004 003 Total 0.0528 0.5194 0.4619 2.0900e- 0.1373 1.7500e- 0.1391 0.0371 1.6500e- 0.0388 221.1280 221.1280 0.0133 221.4603 003 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 13 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Mitigated 9 0.0220 i 0.0696 i 0.2626 : 8.8000e- : 0.0870 i 7.4000e- i 0.0877 i 0.0233 i 6.9000e- 0.0240 • i 88.9938 i 88.9938 i 3.2600e- i i 89.0753 91 1 1 004 1 1 004 1 1 1 004 • 1 1 003 1 1 91 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,a. . 1- 1. I- I- } I. i. T 1. 1. .1. 4. r Unmitigated 0.0220 • 0.0696 • 0.2626 • 8.8000e- • 0.0870 • 7.4000e- • 0.0877 • 0.0233 • 6.9000e- • 0.0240 • • 88.9938 • 88.9938 • 3.2600e- • • 89.0753 004 004 004 003 MI 4.2 Trip Summary Information Ave age Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park ; 1.38 16.61 12.22 • 12,587 • 12,587 Total I 1.38 I 16.61 12.22 I 12,587 1 12,587 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W I H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary I Diverted I i Pass -by i City Park • 14.70 6.60 6.60 • 33.00 48.00 19.00 • 28 6 . 66 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH I City Park : 0.476244: 0.050164: 0.262181: 0.139658: 0.017521: 0.006864: 0.023236: 0.006525: 0.004137: 0.003158: 0.009064: 0.000471: 0.000777 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Enerav Use: N CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Attachment 8 Page 10 of 13 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaturalGas •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mitigated .: 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -. 1 1 1 1 NaturalGas • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 Unmitigated 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park i 0 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I I . . 1 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 13 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park 1 0 •i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 1.6500e- 1 0.0000 1 7.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000e- i 1.6000e- 1 0.0000 1 i 1.7000e- •i �i 003 005 1 1 1 1 1 i 004 ,i i i i i i 1 i : i 004 i 004 i 1 .� 1- } } 4 } 4 4 } r • i. } 4 4 Unmitigated •g 1.6500e- g 0.0000 • 7.0000e- • 0.0000 g • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • g 0.0000 • 0.0000 • g 1.6000e- • 1.6000e- g 0.0000 • • 1.7000e- 003 005 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 13 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Coating :1 Consumer • 1.6400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Products 003 ir J J J J J J J J V J J J I' Landscaping • 1.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.7000e- 005 005 • 004 004 i 004 Total 1.6500e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.7000e- 003 005 004 004 004 Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 Coating J J J J J J J J J Fe V Consumer • 1.6400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Products 003 • J J J J J J J J J J V Landscaping • 1.0000e- i 0.0000 7.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.7000e- 005 005 • • 004 004 004 Total 1.6500e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.7000e- 003 005 004 004 004 7.0 Water Detail CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 13 of 13 Date: 1/18/2019 3:07 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Winter 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year l Horse Power l Load Factor l Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type L Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment 1 Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 18 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair San Mateo County, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric 1 Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population City Park • • 0.73 Acre 0.73 31, 798.80 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Rural Climate Zone 5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 0.029 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - schedule from client Off -road Equipment - Based on description from client - mostly hand tools, possibly drill Off -road Equipment - Precipitation Freq (Days) 70 Operational Year 2022 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 18 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Table Name 1 Column Name Default Value 1 New Value tblConstructionPhase • NumDays i 100.00 • 10.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate I 6/9/2021 1/15/2021 I tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate I 1/21/2021 1/4/2021 I tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType F Trenchers tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 2.00 • 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment ▪ OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 2.00 • 1.00 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel • Urban Rural 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 18 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 •' 3.0900e- 0.0296 0.0266 4.0000e- 6.6000e- 1.8400e- 2.5000e- 1.8000e- 1.7000e- 1.8700e- • 0.0000 i 3.8590 3.8590 9.8000e- 0.0000 3.8835 003 005 004 003 003 004 003 003 ; • • 004 Maximum 3.0900e- 0.0296 0.0266 4.0000e- 6.6000e- 1.8400e- 2.5000e- 1.8000e- 1.7000e- 1.8700e- 0.0000 3.8590 3.8590 9.8000e- 0.0000 3.8835 11 003 005 004 003 003 004 003 003 004 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 3.0900e- 0.0296 0.0266 4.0000e- 6.6000e- 1.8400e- 2.5000e- 1.8000e- 1.7000e- 1.8700e- • 0.0000 i 3.8590 3.8590 9.8000e- 0.0000 3.8835 003 005 004 003 003 004 003 003 ; • 004 i Maximum 3.0900e- 0.0296 0.0266 4.0000e- 6.6000e- 1.8400e- 2.5000e- 1.8000e- 1.7000e- 1.8700e- 0.0000 3.8590 3.8590 9.8000e- 0.0000 3.8835 II 003 005 004 003 003 004 003 003 004 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 18 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-4-2021 4-3-2021 0.0281 0.0281 Highest 0.0281 0.0281 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 I 0.0000 1.0000e- ;� 004 005 i 005 005 1 i 005 f J J J J J J J J ; J J J T Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 f J J J J J J J J V J J J T Mobile • 1.2200e- 3.7800e- 0.0140 5.0000e- 4.6700e- 4.0000e- 4.7100e- 1.2500e- 4.0000e- 1.2900e- • 0.0000 i 4.5271 4.5271 1.6000e- 0.0000 4.5311 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 : 004 f J J J J J J J J ; J J J T Waste • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0122 i 0.0000 0.0122 7.2000e- 0.0000 0.0302 004 f J J J J J J J J V J J J T Water • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.8856 0.8856 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.8891 • 005 005 i Total 1.5200e- 3.7800e- 0.0141 5.0000e- 4.6700e- 4.0000e- 4.7100e- 1.2500e- 4.0000e- 1.2900e- 0.0122 5.4127 5.4249 9.2000e- 1.0000e- 5.4504 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 18 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •I :1 ,l Energy •i q •I , Mobile • Waste •i ir Water .1 3.0000e- 0.0000 1 1.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 004 005 J J J J J J J J V 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 * 0.0000 1 1 ; 1 1 l J .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 le 1.2200e- 3.7800e- I 0.0140 5.0000e- 1 4.6700e- 4.0000e- 4.7100e- 1.2500e- 4.0000e- 1.2900e- • 0.0000 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 J J J J J J J J . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 * 0.0122 J J J J J J J J V 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 ■ ' 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 005 i i 005 J J J i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 .1 .1 .1 i 4.5271 4.5271 1.6000e- 1 0.0000 4.5311 004 J J J i 0.0000 0.0122 7.2000e- 0.0000 0.0302 004 J J J i 0.8856 0.8856 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.8891 005 005 i Total 1.5200e- 003 3.7800e- 003 0.0141 5.0000e- 005 4.6700e- 003 4.0000e- 005 4.7100e- 003 1.2500e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 0.0122 5.4127 5.4249 9.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4504 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fug'tive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fug'tive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 :Building Construction :Building Construction '1/4/2021 :1/15/2021 5: 10: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 6 of 18 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Building Construction Building Construction Building Construction Building Construction !Trenchers :Cranes :Forklifts :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.001 ° 78: 0 4.001 0; 6.001 I. r 1: 8.00: 231: 89: 0.50 0.29 0.20 97 : 0.37 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Building Construction 2' 13.00' 5.00' 0.00' 10.80' 6.60' 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix 'HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 18 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 3.2 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road • 2.8500e- 0.0270 0.0243 3.0000e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 1.6900e- 1.6900e- • 0.0000 i 2.8478 2.8478 9.2000e- 0.0000 2.8708 003 005 003 003 003 003 004 Total 2.8500e- 0.0270 0.0243 3.0000e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 1.6900e- 1.6900e- 0.0000 2.8478 2.8478 9.2000e- 0.0000 2.8708 003 005 003 003 003 003 004 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •i i J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J Vendor • 8.0000e- 2.4800e- 1.0600e- 1.0000e- 1.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.5000e- 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 5.0000e- • 0.0000 0.6003 0.6003 5.0000e- 0.0000 0.6016 005 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 005 : 005 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker • 1.7000e- 1.1000e- 1.1700e- 0.0000 5.1000e- 0.0000 5.1000e- 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- • 0.0000 1 0.4109 0.4109 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.4111 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 : 005 Total 2.5000e- 2.5900e- 2.2300e- 1.0000e- 6.6000e- 1.0000e- 6.6000e- 1.8000e- 1.0000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.0112 1.0112 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.0127 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 I 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 18 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 3.2 Building Construction - 2021 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road • 2.8500e- 0.0270 0.0243 3.0000e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 1.6900e- 1.6900e- • 0.0000 i 2.8478 2.8478 9.2000e- 0.0000 2.8708 003 005 003 003 003 003 004 Total 2.8500e- 0.0270 0.0243 3.0000e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 1.6900e- 1.6900e- 0.0000 2.8478 2.8478 9.2000e- 0.0000 2.8708 003 005 003 003 003 003 004 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J Vendor • 8.0000e- 2.4800e- 1.0600e- 1.0000e- 1.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.5000e- 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 5.0000e- • 0.0000 0.6003 0.6003 5.0000e- 0.0000 0.6016 005 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 005 : 005 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 . Worker • 1.7000e- 1.1000e- 1.1700e- 0.0000 5.1000e- 0.0000 5.1000e- 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- • 0.0000 1 0.4109 0.4109 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.4111 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 : 005 Total 2.5000e- 2.5900e- 2.2300e- 1.0000e- 6.6000e- 1.0000e- 6.6000e- 1.8000e- 1.0000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.0112 1.0112 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.0127 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 I 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Attachment 8 Page 9 of 18 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 1.2200e- 1 3.7800e- 1 0.0140 5.0000e- i 4.6700e- 1 4.0000e- i 4.7100e- 1 1.2500e- 4.0000e- 1.2900e- 0.0000 i 4.5271 i 4.5271 1 1.6000e- 1 0.0000 4.5311 •' 003 1 003 1 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 1 003 1 005 003 . ' 1 1 004 1 '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • .l- 4. 4- } } 1- 4. } } 4- } 4- 4 - Unmitigated •• 1.2200e- 3.7800e- • 0.0140 • 5.0000e- 4.6700e- • 4.0000e- • 4.7100e- • 1.2500e- • 4.0000e- • 1.2900e- • 0.0000 4.5271 • 4.5271 • 1.6000e- • 0.0000 • 4.5311 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 4.2 Trip Summary Information Ave age Daily Trip Rate - Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park + 1.38 16.61 12.22 • 12,587 • 12,587 Total I 1.38 I 16.61 12.22 I 12,587 I 12,587 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by City Park • 14.70 6.60 6.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 • . 66 28 6 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA : 0.476244: 0.050164' 0.262181' 0.139658' 0.017521' 0.006864' 0.023236' 0.006525' 0.004137' 0.003158' 0.009064' 0.000471' 0.0007771 LDT1 I LDT2 MDV I LHD1 LHD2 I MHD HHD I OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH City Park CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.0 Energy Detail Attachment 8 Page 10 of 18 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx Co SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated •1 i i . i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 .I .1 Electricity •I i i 1 i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 Unmitigated ,� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 NaturalGas •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 Mitigated •▪ 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 NaturalGas • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . • 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • • • • v • • • • • • • • • • • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 1 1 4. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 18 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 1 0 : i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 * 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 .1 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 12 of 18 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 1 0 : i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 1 0 :i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 18 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 3.0000e- i 0.0000 : 1.0000e- i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 1.0000e- : 1.0000e- i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 1.000Oe- �: 004 1 1 005 . 005 005 i 005 '� ;1. 4. 1- 4. • 1 1- 1. } 4. I. . ;. 4. } 1- Unmitigated •• 3.0000e- • 0.0000 • 1.0000e- • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 1.0000e- 004 005 005 005 005 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating r Consumer • 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products 004 r Landscaping •i 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- • 005 • 005 005 005 Total 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 005 005 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 18 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 Coating ;i Consumer • 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products 7, 004 Landscaping .1 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 • 005 005 i 005 Total 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 005 005 005 005 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •1 0.8856 1 4.0000e- 1 1.0000e- 1 0.8891 .1 1 005 I 005 1 •I ei• 4 i• r Unmitigated • 0.8856 . 4.0000e- • 1.0000e- • 0.8891 005 005 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 15 of 18 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 1 0 / ■1 0.8856 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.8891 0.869781 : 005 005 1 Total 0.8856 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.8891 I 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Attachment 8 Page 16 of 18 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal 1 MT/yr City Park i 0 / •i i 0.869781 : i 0.8856 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.8891 005 005 i Total 0.8856 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.8891 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •1 0.0122 i 7.2000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.0302 •1 004 1 1 ei• r r Unmitigated • 0.0122 7.2000e- • 0.0000 • 0.0302 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 17 of 18 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr City Park i 0.06 •i 0.0122 7.2000e- 0.0000 0.0302 i 004 i Total 0.0122 7.2000e- 0.0000 0.0302 004 Mitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr City Park i 0.06 •i 0.0122 7.2000e- 0.0000 0.0302 i 004 i : Total 0.0122 7.2000e- 0.0000 0.0302 004 9.0 Operational Offroad I Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 10.0 Stationary Equipment Page 18 of 18 Toto Ranch RMP Fencing Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 3:05 PM Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 16 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer Toto Ranch Field 3 System San Mateo County, Summer 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric 1 Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces • • 8.40 528.00 a 4 1000sgft 1000sgft 0.19 12.12 t 8,400.00 528,000.00 4. 0 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Rural Climate Zone 5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - 1 month schedule from client Off -road Equipment - Off -road Equipment - mostly hand tools, reduced fleet Off -road Equipment - would be mostly hand tools Trips and VMT - Reduced to match grading Grading - based on 0.5 miles of pipe 0.029 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70 Operational Year 2023 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 16 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer Table Name 1 Column Name Default Value 1 New Value tblConstructionPhase tblConstructionPhase tblGrading tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tbI ProjectC ha racteri sti cs tblTripsAndVMT tblTripsAndVMT • • • • • • • • • • • NumDays NumDays AcresOfGrading OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ;r UrbanizationLevel VendorTripNumber WorkerTripNumber • 300.00 30.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 Urban 88.00 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 225.00 10.00 10.00 12.31 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Rural 8.00 8.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2022 •i 1.2322 11.3229 10.6068 0.0209 1.3712 0.5134 1.7871 0.1584 0.4893 0.5410 • 0.0000 ' 1,998.789 1,998.789 0.3658 0.0000 2,007.908 • 9 9 i 1 Maximum 1.2322 11.3229 10.6068 0.0209 1.3712 0.5134 1.7871 0.1584 0.4893 0.5410 0.0000 1,998.789 1,998.789 0.3658 0.0000 2,007.908 9 9 1 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2022 •1 1.2322 11.3229 10.6068 0.0209 1.3712 0.5134 1.7871 0.1584 0.4893 0.5410 • 0.0000 1,998.789 1,998.789 0.3658 0.0000 2,007.908 i • 9 9 i 1 Maximum 1.2322 11.3229 10.6068 0.0209 1.3712 0.5134 1.7871 0.1584 0.4893 0.5410 0.0000 1,998.789 1,998.789 0.3658 0.0000 2,007.908 II 1 9 9 1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 0.4562 5.0000e- 0.0548 0.0000 I 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- • i 0.1174 0.1174 3.1000e- 1 0.1251 004 004 004 004 004 004 J J .1 .1 .1 .1 J J ; J J J T Energy • 3.4000e- 3.1400e- 2.6300e- 2.0000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- • i 3.7634 3.7634 7.0000e- 7.0000e- 3.7858 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 • 005 005 e J J J .1 J J J J ; J J J • Mobile •i 0.0235 0.0635 0.2991 1.1800e- 0.1158 8.7000e- 0.1167 0.0310 8.1000e- 0.0318 • i 119.4554 119.4554 3.9300e- 119.5538 003 004 004 ; • 003 Total 0.4800 0.0671 0.3565 1.2000e- 0.1158 1.3100e- 0.1171 0.0310 1.2500e- 0.0323 123.3362 123.3362 4.3100e- 7.0000e- 123.4646 003 003 003 003 005 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 0.4562 5.0000e- I 0.0548 0.0000 1 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- : 2.0000e- • 0.1174 0.1174 3.1000e- I 0.1251 004 004 004 004 004 ; 004 .e J J J J 1 J J J .e J J J Energy • 3.4000e- 3.1400e- 2.6300e- 2.0000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- • 3.7634 3.7634 7.0000e- 7.0000e- 3.7858 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 : 005 005 . J .1 J .1 .1 J J .1 . .1 J .1 y. Mobile •i 0.0235 0.0635 0.2991 1.1800e- 0.1158 8.7000e- 0.1167 0.0310 8.1000e- 0.0318 • 119.4554 119.4554 3.9300e- 119.5538 003 004 004 ; 003 Total 0.4800 0.0671 0.3565 1.2000e- 0.1158 1.3100e- 0.1171 0.0310 1.2500e- 0.0323 123.3362 123.3362 4.3100e- 7.0000e- 123.4646 003 003 003 003 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 :Grading :Grading i 1/3/2022 11/14/2022 1 5: 10: • +1 f f T 4 2 •Building Construction :Building Construction 1/17/2022 1/28/2022 5. 10: • Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 12.31 Acres of Paving: 12.12 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM Phase Name Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Building Construction Building Construction Building Construction Offroad Equipment Type 1 I :Excavators 1; 8.001 158: 0.38 :Graders 0; 8.001 187: 0.41 - :Rubber Tired Dozers 0; 8.001 247: 0.40 I. - - --- + +Scrapers 0; 8.001 367: 0.48 t- - - J. _ +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.001 97: 0.37 1 8.001 78: 0.50 Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power 1 Load Factor :Trenchers :Cranes :Forklifts :Generator Sets Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Building Construction Welders 1 ; 7.001 231: .1 e4 1 8.001 89: 1 8.001 84: t4 1; 7.001 97: F r 1: 8.00 0.29 0.20 0.74 0.37 46: 0.45 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class I Grading 3; 8.00' 0.001 0.00: 10.80: 6.60; 20.00;LD_Mix !HDT_Mix � - ---�------reef T 'I- f Y t * ' v• ' Building Construction • 5' 8.00' 8.00' 0.00' 10.80' 6.60' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix 'HHDT HHDT T 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer 3.2 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Fugitive Dust -i 1.3055 0.0000 1.3055 0.1410 0.0000 0.1410 : 0.0000 0.0000 J J J J J J J J J J t Off -Road •i 0.7310 6.8323 8.0921 0.0117 0.4155 0.4155 0.3823 0.3823 6 i 1,128.203 1,128.203 0.3649 1,137.325 • 7 7 8 Total 0.7310 6.8323 8.0921 0.0117 1.3055 0.4155 1.7210 0.1410 0.3823 0.5232 1,128.203 1,128.203 0.3649 1,137.325 7 7 8 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J J .• 1 J .1 .1 T Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker •i 0.0193 0.0106 0.1430 5.7000e- 0.0657 3.8000e- 0.0661 0.0174 3.5000e- 0.0178 • 1 57.0120 57.0120 9.6000e- 57.0361 004 004 004 ; • 004 Total 0.0193 0.0106 0.1430 5.7000e- 0.0657 3.8000e- 0.0661 0.0174 3.5000e- 0.0178 57.0120 57.0120 9.6000e- 57.0361 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer 3.2 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Fugitive Dust -i 1.3055 0.0000 1.3055 0.1410 0.0000 0.1410 : 0.0000 0.0000 J J J J J J J J V J J t Off -Road •i 0.7310 6.8323 8.0921 0.0117 0.4155 0.4155 0.3823 0.3823 6 0.0000 i 1,128.203 1,128.203 0.3649 1,137.325 • 7 7 8 Total 0.7310 6.8323 8.0921 0.0117 1.3055 0.4155 1.7210 0.1410 0.3823 0.5232 0.0000 1,128.203 1,128.203 0.3649 1,137.325 7 7 8 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J J .• 1 J J .1 v Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J J J J J .1 .1 J i J J .1 . Worker •i 0.0193 0.0106 0.1430 5.7000e- 0.0657 3.8000e- 0.0661 0.0174 3.5000e- 0.0178 • 1 57.0120 57.0120 9.6000e- 57.0361 004 004 004 ; • 004 Total 0.0193 0.0106 0.1430 5.7000e- 0.0657 3.8000e- 0.0661 0.0174 3.5000e- 0.0178 57.0120 57.0120 9.6000e- 57.0361 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Off -Road -i 1.1908 10.5735 10.1395 0.0184 0.5116 0.5116 0.4875 0.4875 • 1,731.103 1,731.103 0.3457 1,739.746 8 8 1 2 Total 1.1908 10.5735 10.1395 0.0184 0.5116 0.5116 0.4875 0.4875 1,731.103 1,731.103 0.3457 1,739.746 8 8 2 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T Vendor •i 0.0221 0.7388 0.3242 1.9100e- 0.0488 1.5100e- 0.0504 0.0141 1.4400e- 0.0155 • 210.6741 210.6741 0.0181 211.1258 003 003 003 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker •i 0.0193 0.0106 0.1430 5.7000e- 0.0657 3.8000e- 0.0661 0.0174 3.5000e- 0.0178 • 1 57.0120 57.0120 9.6000e- 57.0361 004 004 004 ; • 004 Total 0.0414 0.7494 0.4673 2.4800e- 003 0.1146 1.8900e- 003 0.1165 0.0315 1.7900e- 003 0.0333 267.6861 267.6861 0.0190 268.1619 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Off -Road •1 1.1908 10.5735 10.1395 0.0184 0.5116 0.5116 0.4875 0.4875 • 0.0000 1,731.103 1,731.103 0.3457 1,739.746 8 8 i 2 Total 1.1908 10.5735 10.1395 0.0184 0.5116 0.5116 0.4875 0.4875 0.0000 1,731.103 1,731.103 0.3457 1,739.746 8 8 2 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •i i J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T Vendor •i 0.0221 0.7388 0.3242 1.9100e- 0.0488 1.5100e- 0.0504 0.0141 1.4400e- 0.0155 • 210.6741 210.6741 0.0181 211.1258 003 003 003 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker •i 0.0193 0.0106 0.1430 5.7000e- 0.0657 3.8000e- 0.0661 0.0174 3.5000e- 0.0178 • 1 57.0120 57.0120 9.6000e- 57.0361 004 004 004 ; • 004 Total 0.0414 0.7494 0.4673 2.4800e- 003 0.1146 1.8900e- 003 0.1165 0.0315 1.7900e- 003 0.0333 267.6861 267.6861 0.0190 268.1619 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Attachment 8 Page 11 of 16 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 0.0235 i 0.0635 i 0.2991 1.1800e- 1 0.1158 1 8.7000e- 1 0.1167 i 0.0310 8.1000e- 0.0318 119.4554 i 119.4554 1 3.9300e- 119.5538 •1 1 1 1 003 1 1 004 1 1 1 004 . 1 1 003 1 i q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 Unmitigated • 0.0235 0.0635 0.2991 • 1.1800e- • 0.1158 • 8.7000e- • 0.1167 0.0310 • 8.1000e- • 0.0318 • 119.4554 • 119.4554 • 3.9300e- • 119.5538 003 004 004 003 4.2 Trip Summary Information Ave age Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday I Saturday (Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.00 0.00 T Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail + 14.11 14.11 0.00 14.11 • 54,521 • 54,521 Total 14.11 14.11 14.11 54,521 54,521 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ; 14.70 rt Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No : 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 T 4 F 6.60 6.60 59.00 0.00 0.00 • 0 -r r 0.00 41.00 • . 92 0 0 r r 5 3 4.4 Fleet Mix CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH I Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ' 0.4706251 0.050338! 0.265549 0.140745! 0.017339 0.006996! 0.024054 0.006595! 0.004215 0.003104! 0.009159 0.000488 0.000793 r r r E r r r r r r 1- Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No ' 0.470625. 0.050338: 0.265549: 0.140745: 0.017339: 0.006996: 0.024054: 0.006595: 0.004215: 0.003104: 0.009159: 0.000488: 0.000793 Rail • 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas 9 3.4000e- 1 3.1400e- i 2.6300e- � 2.0000e- i 1 2.4000e- � 2.4000e- 2.4000e- : 2.4000e- � 3.7634 i 3.7634 1 7.0000e- i 7.0000e- 1 3.7858 Mitigated ,: 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . iI 0051 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 ' .1 + + r + + + + + + I- + + + r NaturalGas •. 3.4000e- ' 3.1400e- ' 2.6300e- • 2.0000e- ' • 2.4000e- • 2.4000e- ' • 2.4000e- ' 2.4000e- • ' 3.7634 • 3.7634 • 7.0000e- ' 7.0000e- • 3.7858 Unmitigated 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Non- 1 0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces i r 4 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * 4 1 1 Unrefrigerated 1 31.989 }p 3.4000e- 1 3.1400e- i 2.6300e- 2.0000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- r 3.7634 i 3.7634 1 7.0000e- i 7.0000e- 3.7858 Warehouse -No i 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 i 004 * 005 005 Rail 1 7 r Total 3.4000e- 3.1400e- 2.6300e- 2.0000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 3.7634 3.7634 7.0000e- 7.0000e- 3.7858 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Non- 1 0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces 1 i i 1 1 i 1 i 1 i i i . 1i ' i i • 1 i Unrefrigerated 1 0.031989 ii 3.4000e- 1 3.1400e- 12.6300e- 2.0000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- r 3.7634 I 3.7634 i 7.0000e- i 7.0000e- 3.7858 Warehouse -No 1 7 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 11 Rail 1 i 004 } r 005 005 Total 3.4000e- 3.1400e- 2.6300e- 2.0000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 3.7634 3.7634 7.0000e- 7.0000e- 3.7858 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Mitigated •i 0.4562 1 5.0000e- 1 0.0548 1 0.0000 1 1 2.0000e- 1 2.0000e- 1 1 2.0000e- 2.0000e- • i 0.1174 1 0.1174 1 3.1000e- 1 i 0.1251 •� I 004 I 1 1 I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 I 004 I 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1 1 1 :l• } 1. } } } } } } + i- } } } r Unmitigated • 0.4562 • 5.0000e- • 0.0548 • 0.0000 • • 2.0000e- • 2.0000e- • • 2.0000e- • 2.0000e- • • 0.1174 • 0.1174 • 3.1000e- • • 0.1251 004 004 004 004 004 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •1 0.0843 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating :,• : . J J J J J J J .1 J .1 r Consumer •1 0.3668 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Products . J J .1 J J J J .• J J J Landscaping • 5.0700e- 5.0000e- 0.0548 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- • 0.1174 0.1174 3.1000e- 0.1251 003 004 004 004 004 004 : 004 • • Total 0.4562 5.0000e- 0.0548 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 1 0.1174 0.1174 3.1000e- 0.1251 004 004 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural .i Coating Consumer .1 Products Landscaping • 0.0843 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.3668 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 5.0700e- 5.0000e- 0.0548 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- . 003 004 004 004 004 004 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.1174 0.1174 3.1000e- 0.1251 004 Total 0.4562 5.0000e- 004 0.0548 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 0.1174 0.1174 3.1000e- 004 0.1251 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 16 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:58 PM Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 20 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual Toto Ranch Field 3 System San Mateo County, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric 1 Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces • • 8.40 528.00 a 4 1000sgft 1000sgft 0.19 12.12 t 8,400.00 528,000.00 4. 0 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Rural Climate Zone 5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - 1 month schedule from client Off -road Equipment - Off -road Equipment - mostly hand tools, reduced fleet Off -road Equipment - would be mostly hand tools Trips and VMT - Reduced to match grading Grading - based on 0.5 miles of pipe 0.029 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70 Operational Year 2023 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 20 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual Table Name 1 Column Name Default Value 1 New Value tblConstructionPhase tblConstructionPhase tblGrading tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tbI ProjectC ha racteri sti cs tblTripsAndVMT tblTripsAndVMT • • • • • • • • • • • NumDays NumDays AcresOfGrading OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ;r UrbanizationLevel VendorTripNumber WorkerTripNumber • 300.00 30.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 Urban 88.00 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 225.00 10.00 10.00 12.31 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Rural 8.00 8.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 .' 9.9100e- 0.0909 0.0942 1.7000e- 7.3900e- 4.6500e- 0.0120 9.4000e- 4.3600e- 5.3000e- • 0.0000 i 14.4049 14.4049 3.3100e- 0.0000 14.4877 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 ; • • 003 Maximum 9.9100e- 0.0909 0.0942 1.7000e- 7.3900e- 4.6500e- 0.0120 9.4000e- 4.3600e- 5.3000e- 0.0000 14.4049 14.4049 3.3100e- 0.0000 14.4877 11 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year - tons/yr MT/yr 2022 9.9100e- 0.0909 0.0942 1.7000e- 7.3900e- 4.6500e- 0.0120 9.4000e- 4.3600e- 5.3000e- • 0.0000 i 14.4049 14.4049 3.3100e- 0.0000 14.4877 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 ; • 003 Maximum 9.9100e- 0.0909 0.0942 1.7000e- 7.3900e- 4.6500e- 0.0120 9.4000e- 4.3600e- 5.3000e- 0.0000 14.4049 14.4049 3.3100e- 0.0000 14.4877 II 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 003 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-3-2022 4-2-2022 0.0864 0.0864 Highest 0.0864 0.0864 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 0.0828 4.0000e- 4.9300e- I 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- ; 2.0000e- • 0.0000 i 9.5800e- 9.5800e- 3.0000e- 1 0.0000 0.0102 9 005 003 i 005 005 005 005 . i 003 003 005 . J J J J J J J J ; J J J T Energy •� 6.0000e- 5.7000e- 4.8000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- ; 4.0000e- • 0.0000 i 9.8845 9.8845 4.3000e- 1.0000e- 9.9245 005 004 004 005 005 005 005 . 004 1 004 i : J J J J J J J J 4 l J J J r Mobile • 3.9500e- 0.0122 0.0526 2.1000e- 0.0202 1.6000e- 0.0204 5.4300e- 1.5000e- ; 5.5800e- • 0.0000 i 18.7924 18.7924 6.4000e- 0.0000 18.8085 003 004 004 003 004 003 . 004 J J J J J J J J ; J J J T Waste • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 1.6036 i 0.0000 1.6036 0.0948 0.0000 3.9729 J J J J J J J J le J J J T Water • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.6163 i 3.0577 3.6740 0.0634 1.5200e- 5.7138 • 003 i Total 0.0868 0.0128 0.0580 2.1000e- 0.0202 2.2000e- 0.0204 5.4300e- 2.1000e- 5.6400e- 2.2199 31.7442 33.9641 0.1593 1.6200e- 38.4300 004 004 003 004 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 0.0828 4.0000e- 1 4.9300e- 1 0.0000 1 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- • 0.0000 ' 9.5800e- 9.5800e- 3.0000e- 1 0.0000 0.0102 9 005 003 i i 005 005 005 005 .i i i 003 003 005 Energy .1 6.0000e- 5.7000e- 1 4.8000e- 0.0000 1 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- * 0.0000 i 9.8845 9.8845 4.3000e- 1 1.0000e- 9.9245 :1 005 004 004 i 005 005 005 005 • 004 1 004 i ,l . r Mobile • 3.9500e- 0.0122 I 0.0526 2.1000e- 1 0.0202 1.6000e- 0.0204 5.4300e- 1.5000e- 5.5800e- a 0.0000 i 18.7924 18.7924 6.4000e- 1 0.0000 18.8085 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 J J J J J J J J . J J J r Waste •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 * 1.6036 i 0.0000 1.6036 0.0948 0.0000 3.9729 Water .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a 0.6163 i 3.0577 3.6740 0.0634 1.5200e- 5.7138 ■ 003 i Total 0.0868 0.0128 0.0580 2.1000e- 0.0202 2.2000e- 0.0204 5.4300e- 2.1000e- 5.6400e- 2.2199 31.7442 33.9641 0.1593 1.6200e- 38.4300 004 004 003 004 003 003 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fug'tive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fug'tive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 :Grading :Grading X 1/3/2022 11/14/2022 5: 10: 2 :Building Construction :Building Construction :1/17/2022 '1/28/2022 5• 10: CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 6 of 20 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 12.31 Acres of Paving: 12.12 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name 0 :Excavators ; 1 a 1 --+ :Graders ; 0 :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0; :Scrapers , 0; --+ +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 Offroad Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Building Construction Building Construction :Trenchers a [Cranes :Forklifts Building Construction :Generator Sets Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes :Welders Building Construction 8.00 8.00 8.00: 8.00: 8.001 8.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 158: 0.38 187 : 0.41 247 : 0.40 367 : 0.48 97 : 0.37 78: 0.50 2317 0.29 89: 0.20 84 : 0.74 7.001 97 : 0.37 T t 8.00 : 46 : 0.45 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading I. 3: 8.00 , Building Construction : 5' 8.00' • 0.00: 0.001 10.80: 6.60: 20.00:LD_Mix iHDT_Mix i , i 8.00' 0.00' 10.80' 6.60' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HOT Mix HHDT HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual 3.2 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 6.5300e- 0.0000 6.5300e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 004 004 Off -Road • 3.6500e- 0.0342 0.0405 6.0000e- 2.0800e- 2.0800e- 1.9100e- 1.9100e- • 0.0000 i 5.1175 5.1175 1.6600e- 0.0000 5.1588 003 005 003 003 003 003 : • 003 Total 3.6500e- 0.0342 0.0405 6.0000e- 6.5300e- 2.0800e- 8.6100e- 7.0000e- 1.9100e- 2.6100e- 0.0000 5.1175 5.1175 1.6600e- 0.0000 5.1588 003 005 003 003 003 004 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . 1 J J J J J J J •J J J t Worker • 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 6.7000e- 0.0000 3.1000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- • 0.0000 0.2436 0.2436 0.0000 0.0000 0.2437 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 • Total 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 6.7000e- 0.0000 3.1000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.2436 0.2436 0.0000 0.0000 0.2437 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual 3.2 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i 6.5300e- 0.0000 6.5300e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 004 004 : J J J J J J J J J J I. Off -Road • 3.6500e- 0.0342 0.0405 6.0000e- 2.0800e- 2.0800e- 1.9100e- 1.9100e- • 0.0000 i 5.1174 5.1174 1.6600e- 0.0000 5.1588 003 005 003 003 003 003 . • 003 Total 3.6500e- 0.0342 0.0405 6.0000e- 6.5300e- 2.0800e- 8.6100e- 7.0000e- 1.9100e- 2.6100e- 0.0000 5.1174 5.1174 1.6600e- 0.0000 5.1588 003 005 003 003 003 004 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J . J .1 .1 • Worker • 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 6.7000e- 0.0000 3.1000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- • 0.0000 1 0.2436 0.2436 0.0000 0.0000 0.2437 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 . • Total 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 6.7000e- 0.0000 3.1000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.2436 0.2436 0.0000 0.0000 0.2437 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road • 5.9500e- 0.0529 0.0507 9.0000e- 2.5600e- 2.5600e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- • 0.0000 i 7.8522 7.8522 1.5700e- 0.0000 7.8914 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Total 5.9500e- 0.0529 0.0507 9.0000e- 2.5600e- 2.5600e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 7.8522 7.8522 1.5700e- 0.0000 7.8914 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor • 1.1000e- 3.7400e- 1.6900e- 1.0000e- 2.4000e- 1.0000e- 2.4000e- 7.0000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- • 0.0000 0.9480 0.9480 8.0000e- 0.0000 0.9501 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 005 : 005 .1 J J J J J J i J J J 4. Worker • 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 6.7000e- 0.0000 3.1000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- • 0.0000 1 0.2436 0.2436 0.0000 0.0000 0.2437 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 Total 2.1000e- 3.8000e- 2.3600e- 1.0000e- 5.5000e- 1.0000e- 5.6000e- 1.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.7000e- 0.0000 1.1917 1.1917 8.0000e- 0.0000 1.1938 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 I 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road • 5.9500e- 0.0529 0.0507 9.0000e- 2.5600e- 2.5600e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- • 0.0000 i 7.8522 7.8522 1.5700e- 0.0000 7.8914 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Total 5.9500e- 0.0529 0.0507 9.0000e- 2.5600e- 2.5600e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 7.8522 7.8522 1.5700e- 0.0000 7.8914 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T Vendor • 1.1000e- 3.7400e- 1.6900e- 1.0000e- 2.4000e- 1.0000e- 2.4000e- 7.0000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- • 0.0000 0.9480 0.9480 8.0000e- 0.0000 0.9501 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 005 : 005 .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 J . Worker • 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 6.7000e- 0.0000 3.1000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- • 0.0000 1 0.2436 0.2436 0.0000 0.0000 0.2437 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 Total 2.1000e- 3.8000e- 2.3600e- 1.0000e- 5.5000e- 1.0000e- 5.6000e- 1.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.7000e- 0.0000 1.1917 1.1917 8.0000e- 0.0000 1.1938 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 I 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Attachment 8 Page 11 of 20 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 3.9500e- 1 0.0122 i 0.0526 2.1000e- 1 0.0202 1 1.6000e- 1 0.0204 i 5.4300e- 1 1.5000e- 5.5800e- 0.0000 i 18.7924 i 18.7924 1 6.4000e- 1 0.0000 18.8085 •' 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 004 003 . ' 1 1 004 1 '� 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 Unmitigated •• 3.9500e- • 0.0122 0.0526 • 2.1000e- • 0.0202 • 1.6000e- • 0.0204 • 5.4300e- • 1.5000e- • 5.5800e- • 0.0000 18.7924 • 18.7924 • 6.4000e- • 0.0000 • 18.8085 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 4.2 Trip Summary Information Ave age Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.00 0.00 T Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail + 14.11 14.11 0.00 14.11 • 54,521 • 54,521 Total 14.11 14.11 14.11 54,521 54,521 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ; 14.70 rt Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No : 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 T 4 F 6.60 6.60 59.00 0.00 0.00 • 0 -r r 0.00 41.00 • . 92 0 0 r r 5 3 4.4 Fleet Mix CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH I Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ' 0.4706251 0.050338! 0.265549 0.140745! 0.017339 0.006996! 0.024054 0.006595! 0.004215 0.003104! 0.009159 0.000488 0.000793 f E f E f E f E f f 1- Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No ' 0.470625. 0.050338. 0.265549. 0.140745. 0.017339. 0.006996. 0.024054. 0.006595. 0.004215. 0.003104. 0.009159. 0.000488. 0.000793 Rail • 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CI -14 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity •i Mitigated Electricity •i Unmitigated •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 NaturalGas •i 6.0000e- i 5.7000e- i 4.8000e- 0.0000 Mitigated 005 004 004 e1. NaturalGas •• 6.0000e- • 5.7000e- , 4.8000e- • 0.0000 Unmitigated 005 004 004 4.0000e- 1 4.0000e- 005 005 } 4.0000e- • 4.0000e- 005 005 • 4.0000e- : 4.0000e- • 0.0000 005 005 r 4.0000e- , 4.0000e- • 0.0000 , 0.6231 005 005 . 9.2615 9.2615 9.2615 9.2615 0.6231 0.6231 0.6231 4.2000e- 1 9.0000e- 9.2978 004 i 005 4.2000e- i 9.0000e- ▪ 9.2978 004 i 005 1.0000e- i 1.0000e- ▪ 0.6268 005 i 005 i 1- 1.0000e- , 1.0000e- • 0.6268 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Other Non- 1 0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces i 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * Unrefrigerated 1 11676 }p 6.0000e- 1 5.7000e- i 4.8000e- 1 0.0000 1 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- Warehouse -No i 1 005 004 004 005 005 005 Rail 1 I 0.0000 * 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4 1 1 1 4.0000e- r 0.0000 i 0.6231 i 0.6231 1 1.0000e- i 1.0000e- 0.6268 i 005 * 005 005 r • Total 6.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6231 0.6231 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.6268 Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Other Non- 1 0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces 1 1 i i 1 i I 1 1 I 1 i Unrefrigerated 1 11676 ii 6.0000e- 1 5.7000e- 1 4.8000e- 1 0.0000 i 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- Warehouse -No 1 7 005 004 004 005 005 005 11 Rail 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 . • 4.0000e- r 0.0000 005 } r 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1• i 0.6231 I 0.6231 i 1.0000e- i 1.0000e- 0.6268 005 005 Total 6.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6231 0.6231 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.6268 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 14 of 20 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Other Non- i 0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces i i Unrefrigerated i 31836 }i 9.2615 1 4.2000e- 1 9.0000e- * 9.2978 Warehouse -No i V 004 005 Rail 1 , Total 9.2615 4.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.2978 Mitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Other Non- i 0 .i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces 1 i i -r 9.2978 Unrefrigerated l 31836 ii 9.2615 1 4.2000e- 1 9.0000e- Warehouse -No 1 7 004 005 Rail Total 9.2615 4.2000e- 9.0000e- 9.2978 004 005 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 0.0828 1 4.0000e- 1 4.9300e- 1 0.0000 1 2.0000e- 1 2.0000e- 1 1 2.0000e- 2.0000e- • 0.0000 i 9.5800e- 9.5800e- 1 3.0000e- 1 0.0000 i 0.0102 •1 I 005 I 003 005 005 005 005 . 003 003 005 i .- } 1. } } } } } } + i- } } } r Unmitigated • 0.0828 • 4.0000e- • 4.9300e- • 0.0000 • • 2.0000e- • 2.0000e- • • 2.0000e- • 2.0000e- • 0.0000 • 9.5800e- • 9.5800e- • 3.0000e- • 0.0000 • 0.0102 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •I 0.0154 1 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Coating :, . .1 J .1 J J J J J J .1 r Consumer •I 0.0669 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products J J .1 J J J J .• J J J Landscaping • 4.6000e- 4.0000e- 4.9300e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- • 0.0000 9.5800e- 9.5800e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0102 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 : 003 003 005 • Total 0.0828 4.0000e- 4.9300e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 1 0.0000 9.5800e- 9.5800e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0102 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural .i 0.0154 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer .1 0.0669 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Landscaping • 4.6000e- 4.0000e- 4.9300e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- • 0.0000 9.5800e- 9.5800e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0102 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 • 003 003 005 Total 0.0828 4.0000e- 4.9300e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 9.5800e- 9.5800e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0102 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •I 3.6740 1 0.0634 : 1.5200e- 1 5.7138 •1 I I 003 i ei• F i• r Unmitigated . 3.6740 . 0.0634 • 1.5200e- • 5.7138 003 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 17 of 20 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Other Non- 1 0 / 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces i Unrefrigerated 1 1.9425 / 0 $u 3.6740 1 0.0634 1 1.5200e- -I. 5.7138 Warehouse -No i 003 , Rail 1 , Total 3.6740 0.0634 1.5200e- 003 5.7138 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Attachment 8 Page 18 of 20 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal 1 MT/yr Other Non- 1 0 / 0 .i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces i i Unrefrigerated 11.9425 / 0 iii 3.6740 1 0.0634 i 1.5200e- 7 5.7138 Warehouse -No i I 003 , Rail 1 , Total 3.6740 0.0634 1.5200e- 5.7138 003 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr • Mitigated •9 •1 Unmitigated 1.6036 1 0.0948 : 0.0000 1 3.9729 I 1 1 I 1 1 I. 1. I. r 9 1.6036 : 0.0948 . 0.0000 . 3.9729 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 19 of 20 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail i 0 .i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Total 1.6036 0.0948 0.0000 3.9729 Mitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr Other Non- i 0 .i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces 1 i Unrefrigerated i 7.9 li 1.6036 1 0.0948 1 0.0000 * • U 3.9729 Warehouse -No 1 Rail 1 , Total 1.6036 0.0948 0.0000 3.9729 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year 1 Horse Power Load Factor I Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 10.0 Stationary Equipment Page 20 of 20 Toto Ranch Field 3 System - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/22/2019 3:57 PM Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers I Equipment Type umber I Heat Input/Day I Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating I Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 17 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer Toto Ranch Roadway Repair San Mateo County, Summer 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric I Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population Parking Lot • • 264.00 0.00 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Climate Zone 5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 0.029 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Schedule from client Off -road Equipment - Revised to reflect culvert rathr than building Off -road Equipment - Off -road Equipment - revised to reflect rock rather than pavement Grading - Grading area is roadway width Trips and VMT - Revised culvert trips to reflect other phases Precipitation Freq (Days) 70 Operational Year 2020 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 17 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase • NumDays i 0.00 • 15.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays /r 0.00 15.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 30.00 • tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate i 7/7/2019 • 7/26/2019 t • tblGrading AcresOfGrading a 0.00 6.60 4 tblGrading • Materiallmported i 0.00 • 4,889.00 • tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor t 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor F 0.38 0.38 • tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor t 0.41 • 0.41 4 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType i Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType + Off -Highway Trucks • tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType F • Dumpers/Tenders • tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType # Graders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 1.00 • 0.00 • tblOffRoadEquipment ▪ OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 4.00 0.00 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 1.00 • 0.00 • tblOffRoadEquipment ▪ OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 1.00 0.00 • 4 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 0.00 10.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2019 •i 1.3869 22.5011 13.3319 0.0467 2.0456 0.5937 2.6392 0.6851 0.5666 1.2516 • 0.0000 ' 5,059.549 5,059.549 0.6852 0.0000 5,076.678 • 0 0 i 2 Maximum 1.3869 22.5011 13.3319 0.0467 2.0456 0.5937 2.6392 0.6851 0.5666 1.2516 0.0000 5,059.549 5,059.549 0.6852 0.0000 5,076.678 0 0 2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year - lb/day lb/day 2019 •1 1.3869 22.5011 13.3319 0.0467 2.0456 0.5937 2.6392 0.6851 0.5666 1.2516 • 0.0000 5,059.549 5,059.549 0.6852 0.0000 5,076.678 i • 0 0 i 2 Maximum 1.3869 22.5011 13.3319 0.0467 2.0456 0.5937 2.6392 0.6851 0.5666 1.2516 0.0000 5,059.549 5,059.549 0.6852 0.0000 5,076.678 II 1 0 0 2 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area •' 2.5500e- 2.5000e- 0.0271 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • i 0.0578 0.0578 1.5000e- 0.0617 003 004 004 004 004 004 004 • J J J J J J J V J J J T Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.5500e- 2.5000e- 0.0271 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0578 0.0578 1.5000e- 0.0000 0.0617 003 004 004 004 004 004 004 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area • 2.5500e- 2.5000e- 0.0271 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0578 0.0578 1.5000e- 0.0617 003 004 004 004 004 004 : 004 • .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 J J .1 . J .1 J Energy •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.5500e- 2.5000e- 0.0271 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0578 0.0578 1.5000e. 0.0000 0.0617 003 004 004 004 004 004 004 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fug live PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fug'tive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 3.0 Construction Detail Page 5 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 :Culvert Repair :Building Construction 17/8/2019 17/26/2019 l 2 :Grading :Grading 1.7/29/2019 18/16/2019Y 1 3 :Rocking :Paving :8/19/2019 :9/27/2019 5: 5� 5: 30: 15: 15: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6.6 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type Rocking Rocking Rocking Grading Culvert Repair Culvert Repair I :Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 :Pavers +Rollers 0 :Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power 1 Load Factor 6.001 9: 7.001 130: 7.001 80: t 8.001 81: i :Cranes :Forklifts 0} 0 0 t Rocking +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 Culvert Repair :Excavators Rocking :Off -Highway Trucks Rocking :Dumpers/Tenders Grading :Rubber Tired Dozers 1y Culvert Repair +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Rocking Grading :Graders •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4.001 231 6.001 89: 7.001 97 8.001 158: 7.001 402: 7.001 16: 1; 1.001 247: 4. i 4 2; 8.001 97: 1 7.001 187: F r 2: 6.00: 0.56 0.42 0.38 0.73 0.29 0.20 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.37 0.41 97 : 0.37 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Rocking Grading Culvert Repair • 4; 10.00: i 4; 10.00. 0.00{ 611.00: 1 3: 10.00: 0.00' 0.00' 0.001 0.001 10.80: 7.30: 10.80: 7.30: 10.80: 7.30 20.00: LD_Mix 20.00: LD_Mix 20.00: LD_Mix HDT_Mix HDT Mix HHDT HHDT :HDT_Mix :HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer 3.2 Culvert Repair - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e ..Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.7277 7.3700 7.8849 0.0114 0.4421 0.4421 0.4067 0.4067 1,128.764 1,128.764 0.3571 1,137.693 9 9 1 2 Total 0.7277 7.3700 7.8849 0.0114 0.4421 0.4421 0.4067 0.4067 1,128.764 1,128.764 0.3571 1,137.693 9 9 2 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker •1 0.0298 0.0184 0.2274 7.9000e- 0.0822 5.0000e- 0.0827 0.0218 4.7000e- 0.0223 • i 79.2318 79.2318 1.6800e- 79.2737 004 004 004 ; 003 Total 0.0298 0.0184 0.2274 7.9000e- 0.0822 5.0000e- 0.0827 0.0218 4.7000e- 0.0223 79.2318 79.2318 1.6800e- 79.2737 004 004 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer 3.2 Culvert Repair - 2019 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e - Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.7277 7.3700 7.8849 0.0114 0.4421 0.4421 0.4067 0.4067 • 0.0000 1,128.764 1,128.764 0.3571 1,137.693 9 9 1 2 Total 0.7277 7.3700 7.8849 0.0114 0.4421 0.4421 0.4067 0.4067 0.0000 1,128.764 1,128.764 0.3571 1,137.693 9 9 2 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker •1 0.0298 0.0184 0.2274 7.9000e- 0.0822 5.0000e- 0.0827 0.0218 4.7000e- 0.0223 • i 79.2318 79.2318 1.6800e- 79.2737 004 004 004 ; 003 Total 0.0298 0.0184 0.2274 7.9000e- 0.0822 5.0000e- 0.0827 0.0218 4.7000e- 0.0223 79.2318 79.2318 1.6800e- 79.2737 004 004 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Fugitive Dust -i 1.2562 0.0000 1.2562 0.4697 0.0000 0.4697 : 0.0000 0.0000 J J J J J J J J V J J J t Off -Road •i 0.9530 8.6039 7.6917 0.0120 0.5371 0.5371 0.5125 0.5125 6 i 1,159.657 1,159.657 0.2211 1,165.184 • 0 0 7 Total 0.9530 8.6039 7.6917 0.0120 1.2562 0.5371 1.7933 0.4697 0.5125 0.9822 1,159.657 1,159.657 0.2211 1,165.184 0 0 7 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.4040 13.8789 5.4128 0.0339 0.7072 0.0561 0.7633 0.1935 0.0537 0.2472 •• 1 3,820.660 I 3,820.660 0.4624 3,832.219 2 2 1 8 J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J J J J J J . J J J 4. Worker •i 0.0298 0.0184 0.2274 7.9000e- 0.0822 5.0000e- 0.0827 0.0218 4.7000e- 0.0223 • i 79.2318 79.2318 1.6800e- 79.2737 004 004 004 ; • 003 Total 0.4339 13.8973 5.6402 0.0347 0.7893 0.0566 0.8459 0.2153 0.0541 0.2694 3,899.892 3,899.892 0.4641 3,911.493 I 0 0 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2019 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Fugitive Dust -i 1.2562 0.0000 1.2562 0.4697 0.0000 0.4697 : 0.0000 0.0000 J J J J J J J J V J J J t Off -Road •i 0.9530 8.6039 7.6917 0.0120 0.5371 0.5371 0.5125 0.5125 6 0.0000 i 1,159.657 1,159.657 0.2211 1,165.184 • 0 0 7 Total 0.9530 8.6039 7.6917 0.0120 1.2562 0.5371 1.7933 0.4697 0.5125 0.9822 0.0000 1,159.657 1,159.657 0.2211 1,165.184 0 0 7 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.4040 13.8789 5.4128 0.0339 0.7072 0.0561 0.7633 0.1935 0.0537 0.2472 •• 1 3,820.660 I 3,820.660 0.4624 3,832.219 2 2 1 8 J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J J J J J J . J J J 4. Worker •i 0.0298 0.0184 0.2274 7.9000e- 0.0822 5.0000e- 0.0827 0.0218 4.7000e- 0.0223 • i 79.2318 79.2318 1.6800e- 79.2737 004 004 004 ; • 003 Total 0.4339 13.8973 5.6402 0.0347 0.7893 0.0566 0.8459 0.2153 0.0541 0.2694 3,899.892 3,899.892 0.4641 3,911.493 I 0 0 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer 3.4 Rocking - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Off -Road •1 1.3169 14.5137 7.3522 0.0208 0.5663 0.5663 0.5223 0.5223 • 2,046.007 2,046.007 0.6362 2,061.912 6 6 i 3 M. J J J J J J J J J J J r Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 • 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3169 14.5137 7.3522 0.0208 0.5663 0.5663 0.5223 0.5223 2,046.007 2,046.007 0.6362 2,061.912 6 6 3 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J .1 .1 T Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J . J .1 .1 • Worker •i 0.0298 0.0184 0.2274 7.9000e- 0.0822 5.0000e- 0.0827 0.0218 4.7000e- 0.0223 • i 79.2318 79.2318 1.6800e- 79.2737 004 004 004 ; 003 Total 0.0298 0.0184 0.2274 7.9000e- 0.0822 5.0000e- 0.0827 0.0218 4.7000e- 0.0223 79.2318 79.2318 1.6800e- 79.2737 004 004 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer 3.4 Rocking - 2019 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Off -Road •1 1.3169 14.5137 7.3522 0.0208 0.5663 0.5663 0.5223 0.5223 • 0.0000 2,046.007 2,046.007 0.6362 2,061.912 6 6 i 3 J J J J J J J J J J J r Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 • 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3169 14.5137 7.3522 0.0208 0.5663 0.5663 0.5223 0.5223 0.0000 2,046.007 2,046.007 0.6362 2,061.912 6 6 3 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J J .• 1 J .1 .1 T Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J . J .1 .1 • Worker •i 0.0298 0.0184 0.2274 7.9000e- 0.0822 5.0000e- 0.0827 0.0218 4.7000e- 0.0223 • i 79.2318 79.2318 1.6800e- 79.2737 004 004 004 ; 003 Total 0.0298 0.0184 0.2274 7.9000e- 0.0822 5.0000e- 0.0827 0.0218 4.7000e- 0.0223 79.2318 79.2318 1.6800e- 79.2737 004 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information Page 13 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM Ave age Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Total 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA LDT1 I LDT2 MDV I LHD1 LHD2 I MHD HHD I OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH I Parking Lot 0.490452: 0.049742: 0.253638: 0.136789: 0.017926: 0.006526: 0.021436: 0.006323: 0.003943: 0.003278: 0.008771: 0.000435: 0.000741 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day I I I I I I 1 I I I I NaturalGas •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mitigated ;i I I 1 I I I I I • 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? 1 1 1 1 ,a. . } 1. 4. I. } 4. 4. r 1. 4. 4. } r NaturalGas 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 • 0.0000 . . 0.0000 • 0.0000 , . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • . 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 Unmitigated 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Parking Lot 0 .1 q 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Parking Lot 1 0 •i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 2.5500e- i 2.5000e- 1 0.0271 1 0.0000 1 1 1.0000e- 1 1.0000e- i 1 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • i 0.0578 i 0.0578 1 1.5000e- i 1 0.0617 '' 003 1 004 1 1 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . ' 1 1 004 1 1 .1. } } 4 4 4 4 4 4 r • L r 4 4 Unmitigated •• 2.5500e- 2.5000e- • 0.0271 • 0.0000 • • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • • 0.0578 • 0.0578 • 1.5000e- • • 0.0617 003 004 004 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 17 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i Coating :1 Consumer .1 Products Landscaping • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 2.5500e- 2.5000e- 0.0271 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 003 004 004 004 004 004 : • 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0578 0.0578 1.5000e- 0.0617 004 Total 2.5500e- 003 2.5000e- 004 0.0271 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0578 0.0578 1.5000e- 004 0.0617 Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory - lb/day lb/day Architectural 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ` i 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Products Landscaping • 2.5500e- 2.5000e- 0.0271 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • i 0.0578 0.0578 1.5000e- 0.0617 003 004 004 004 i 004 004 ; • 004 Total 2.5500e- 2.5000e- 0.0271 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0578 0.0578 1.5000e- 0.0617 003 004 004 004 004 004 004 7.0 Water Detail CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 17 of 17 Date: 1/18/2019 2:56 PM Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Summer 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year l Horse Power l Load Factor l Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type L Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment 1 Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 21 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Toto Ranch Roadway Repair San Mateo County, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric I Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population Parking Lot • • 264.00 0.00 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Climate Zone 5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 0.029 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Schedule from client Off -road Equipment - Revised to reflect culvert rathr than building Off -road Equipment - Off -road Equipment - revised to reflect rock rather than pavement Grading - Grading area is roadway width Trips and VMT - Revised culvert trips to reflect other phases Precipitation Freq (Days) 70 Operational Year 2020 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 21 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase • NumDays i 0.00 • 15.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays /r 0.00 15.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 30.00 • tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate i 7/7/2019 • 7/26/2019 t • tblGrading AcresOfGrading a 0.00 6.60 4 tblGrading • Materiallmported i 0.00 • 4,889.00 • tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor t 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor F 0.38 0.38 • tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor t 0.41 • 0.41 4 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType i Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType + Off -Highway Trucks • tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType F • Dumpers/Tenders • tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType # Graders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 1.00 • 0.00 • tblOffRoadEquipment ▪ OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 4.00 0.00 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 1.00 • 0.00 • tblOffRoadEquipment ▪ OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ; 1.00 0.00 • 4 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 0.00 10.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2019 •i 0.0363 0.4448 0.2746 7.6000e- 0.0169 0.0163 0.0332 5.5600e- 0.0152 0.0207 • 0.0000 i 71.3248 71.3248 0.0158 0.0000 71.7197 004 003 • Maximum 0.0363 0.4448 0.2746 7.6000e- 0.0169 0.0163 0.0332 5.5600e- 0.0152 0.0207 0.0000 71.3248 71.3248 0.0158 0.0000 71.7197 11 004 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2019 •1 0.0363 0.4448 0.2746 7.6000e- 0.0169 0.0163 0.0332 5.5600e- 0.0152 0.0207 • 0.0000 i 71.3248 71.3248 0.0158 0.0000 71.7196 i 004 003 • Maximum 0.0363 0.4448 0.2746 7.6000e- 0.0169 0.0163 0.0332 5.5600e- 0.0152 0.0207 0.0000 71.3248 71.3248 0.0158 0.0000 71.7196 II 004 003 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 7-8-2019 9-30-2019 0.4442 0.4442 Highest 0.4442 0.4442 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •' 2.3000e- 2.0000e- 12.4400e- 0.0000 I 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000 ' 4.7200e- 4.7200e- 1.0000e- I 0.0000 5.0300e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 i 003 J J J J J J J J . J J J Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 * 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ir J J J J J J J J V J J J Waste • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 ■ ■ i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.3000e- 2.0000e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.7200e- 4.7200e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area • 2.3000e- 2.0000e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000 4.7200e- 4.7200e- 1.0000e- I 0.0000 5.0300e- 004 005 003 005 005 i 005 005 • 003 003 005 003 Fe J J J J J J J J J J J V Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • J J J J J J J J J J J V Waste • 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.3000e- 2.0000e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.7200e- 4.7200e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Culvert Repair !Building Construction 17/8/2019 :7/26/2019 i 5: 15 18/16/2019 + I 1; 2 •Grading +Grading 17/29/2019 Y P I. 3 :Rocking :Paving 8/19/2019 :9/27/2019 5; 30: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6.6 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type Rocking Rocking Rocking Grading Culvert Repair Culvert Repair I :Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 :Pavers +Rollers 0 :Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power 1 Load Factor 6.001 9: 7.001 130: 7.001 80: t 8.001 81: i :Cranes :Forklifts 0} 0 0 t Rocking +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 Culvert Repair :Excavators Rocking :Off -Highway Trucks Rocking :Dumpers/Tenders Grading :Rubber Tired Dozers 1y Culvert Repair +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Rocking Grading :Graders •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4.001 231 6.001 89: 7.001 97 8.001 158: 7.001 402: 7.001 16: 1; 1.001 247: t i 4 2; 8.001 97: 1 7.001 187: F r 2: 6.00: 0.56 0.42 0.38 0.73 0.29 0.20 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.37 0.41 97 : 0.37 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Rocking Grading Culvert Repair • 4; 10.00: 4; 10.00. 0.00{ 611.00: 1 3: 10.00: 0.00' 0.00' 0.001 0.001 10.80: 7.30: 10.80: 7.30: 10.80: 7.30 20.00: LD_Mix 20.00: LD_Mix 20.00: LD_Mix HDT_Mix HDT Mix HHDT HHDT :HDT_Mix :HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 3.2 Culvert Repair - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road • 5.4600e- 0.0553 0.0591 9.0000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- • 0.0000 i 7.6800 7.6800 2.4300e- 0.0000 7.7407 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 003 Total 5.4600e- 0.0553 0.0591 9.0000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 7.6800 7.6800 2.4300e- 0.0000 7.7407 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •i i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker • 2.2000e- 1.6000e- 1.6100e- 1.0000e- 5.9000e- 0.0000 5.9000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- • 0.0000 i 0.5078 0.5078 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5081 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 Total 2.2000e- 1.6000e- 1.6100e- 1.0000e- 5.9000e- 0.0000 5.9000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.5078 0.5078 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5081 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 I 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 3.2 Culvert Repair - 2019 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road • 5.4600e- 0.0553 0.0591 9.0000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- • 0.0000 i 7.6800 7.6800 2.4300e- 0.0000 7.7407 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 003 Total 5.4600e- 0.0553 0.0591 9.0000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 7.6800 7.6800 2.4300e- 0.0000 7.7407 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 . Worker • 2.2000e- 1.6000e- 1.6100e- 1.0000e- 5.9000e- 0.0000 5.9000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- • 0.0000 i 0.5078 0.5078 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5081 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 Total 2.2000e- 1.6000e- 1.6100e- 1.0000e- 5.9000e- 0.0000 5.9000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.5078 0.5078 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5081 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 I 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 9.4200e- 0.0000 9.4200e- 3.5200e- 0.0000 3.5200e- : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 003 003 : J J J J J J J J V J J J I. Off -Road • 7.1500e- 0.0645 0.0577 9.0000e- 4.0300e- 4.0300e- 3.8400e- 3.8400e- • 0.0000 i 7.8902 7.8902 1.5000e- 0.0000 7.9278 003 005 003 003 003 003 . • 003 Total 7.1500e- 0.0645 0.0577 9.0000e- 9.4200e- 4.0300e- 0.0135 3.5200e- 3.8400e- 7.3600e- 0.0000 7.8902 7.8902 1.5000e- 0.0000 7.9278 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling • 3.0600e- 0.1067 I 0.0410 2.5000e- 5.1100e- 4.3000e- 5.5400e- 1.4000e- 4.1000e- 1.8100e- • 0.0000 1 25.8820 I 25.8820 3.1600e- 0.0000 25.9609 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 . i 003 J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J J J J J J i J J J 4. Worker • 2.2000e- 1.6000e- 1.6100e- 1.0000e- 5.9000e- 0.0000 5.9000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- • 0.0000 i 0.5078 0.5078 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5081 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 . • 005 Total 3.2800e- 0.1069 0.0426 2.6000e- 5.7000e- 4.3000e- 6.1300e- 1.5600e- 4.1000e- 1.9700e- 0.0000 26.3897 26.3897 3.1700e- 0.0000 26.4690 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 I 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2019 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 9.4200e- 0.0000 9.4200e- 3.5200e- 0.0000 3.5200e- : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 003 003 : J J J J J J J J V J J J I. Off -Road • 7.1500e- 0.0645 0.0577 9.0000e- 4.0300e- 4.0300e- 3.8400e- 3.8400e- • 0.0000 i 7.8902 7.8902 1.5000e- 0.0000 7.9278 003 005 003 003 003 003 . • 003 Total 7.1500e- 0.0645 0.0577 9.0000e- 9.4200e- 4.0300e- 0.0135 3.5200e- 3.8400e- 7.3600e- 0.0000 7.8902 7.8902 1.5000e- 0.0000 7.9278 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling • 3.0600e- 0.1067 I 0.0410 2.5000e- 5.1100e- 4.3000e- 5.5400e- 1.4000e- 4.1000e- 1.8100e- • 0.0000 1 25.8820 I 25.8820 3.1600e- 0.0000 25.9609 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 . i 003 J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J J J J J J i J J J 4. Worker • 2.2000e- 1.6000e- 1.6100e- 1.0000e- 5.9000e- 0.0000 5.9000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- • 0.0000 i 0.5078 0.5078 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5081 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 . • 005 Total 3.2800e- 0.1069 0.0426 2.6000e- 5.7000e- 4.3000e- 6.1300e- 1.5600e- 4.1000e- 1.9700e- 0.0000 26.3897 26.3897 3.1700e- 0.0000 26.4690 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 I 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 3.4 Rocking - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0198 0.2177 0.1103 3.1000e- 8.4900e- 8.4900e- 7.8300e- 7.8300e- • 0.0000 i 27.8416 27.8416 8.6600e- 0.0000 28.0580 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 f J J J J J J J J J J I. Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0198 0.2177 0.1103 3.1000e- 8.4900e- 8.4900e- 7.8300e- 7.8300e- 0.0000 27.8416 27.8416 8.6600e- 0.0000 28.0580 004 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J J J .1 .1 .1 . J .1 .1 • Worker • 4.4000e- 3.1000e- 3.2200e- 1.0000e- 1.1800e- 1.0000e- 1.1900e- 3.1000e- 1.0000e- 3.2000e- • 0.0000 1 1.0156 1.0156 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.0161 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 . 005 Total 4.4000e- 3.1000e- 3.2200e- 1.0000e- 1.1800e- 1.0000e- 1.1900e- 3.1000e- 1.0000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 1.0156 1.0156 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.0161 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 I 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 3.4 Rocking - 2019 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0198 0.2177 0.1103 3.1000e- 8.4900e- 8.4900e- 7.8300e- 7.8300e- • 0.0000 i 27.8416 27.8416 8.6600e- 0.0000 28.0580 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 f J J J J J J J J V J J I. Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0198 0.2177 0.1103 3.1000e- 8.4900e- 8.4900e- 7.8300e- 7.8300e- 0.0000 27.8416 27.8416 8.6600e- 0.0000 28.0580 004 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J •• I J J J Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J J J J J J . J J J 4. Worker • 4.4000e- 3.1000e- 3.2200e- 1.0000e- 1.1800e- 1.0000e- 1.1900e- 3.1000e- 1.0000e- 3.2000e- • 0.0000 1 1.0156 1.0156 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.0161 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 . 005 Total 4.4000e- 3.1000e- 3.2200e- 1.0000e- 1.1800e- 1.0000e- 1.1900e- 3.1000e- 1.0000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 1.0156 1.0156 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.0161 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 I 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information Page 14 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM Ave age Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Total 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA LDT1 I LDT2 MDV I LHD1 LHD2 I MHD HHD I OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH I Parking Lot 0.490452: 0.049742: 0.253638: 0.136789: 0.017926: 0.006526: 0.021436: 0.006323: 0.003943: 0.003278: 0.008771: 0.000435: 0.000741 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated •11 i i 1 i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 9 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 .1 .1 4 Electricity 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 • 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 Unmitigated i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 NaturalGas •i 0.0000 1 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 ▪ 0.0000 1 1 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 • 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 Mitigated ;i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaturalGas •0 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . . 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 } 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 4. 0.0000 i 0.0000 + r 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Parking Lot i 0 : i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Parking Lot 1 0 : i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 * 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Parking Lot 1 0 :i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Attachment 8 Page 17 of 21 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Parking Lot 1 0 •i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 2.3000e- i 2.0000e- 1 2.4400e- 1 0.0000 1 1 1.0000e- 1 1.0000e- i 1 1.0000e- 1 1.0000e- • 0.0000 i 4.7200e- i 4.7200e- 1 1.0000e- i 0.0000 i 5.0300e- " 004 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 005 005 .1 1 003 003 005 1 i 003 .1. } } } 4 4 4 4 4 r • i. } 4 } Unmitigated •• 2.3000e- 2.0000e- • 2.4400e- • 0.0000 • • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • 0.0000 • 4.7200e- • 4.7200e- • 1.0000e- • 0.0000 • 5.0300e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 Coating :1 J J J J J J J J . J J J Consumer .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products J J J J J J J J V J J J Landscaping • 2.3000e- 2.0000e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000 4.7200e- 4.7200e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 • 003 003 005 i 003 Total 2.3000e- 2.0000e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.7200e- 4.7200e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory - tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 Coating .1 J J J J J J J J J J Consumer •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products J J J J J J J J J J J Landscaping • 2.3000e- 2.0000e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 0.0000 4.7200e- 4.7200e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- 004 005 003 005 005 i 005 005 • • 003 003 005 003 Total 2.3000e- 2.0000e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.7200e- 4.7200e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 7.0 Water Detail CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 19 of 21 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr • Mitigated •1 ei• Unmitigated 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 20 of 21 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr 1 0 .1 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr 1 0 •1 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0 Operational Offroad I Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 10.0 Stationary Equipment Page 21 of 21 Toto Ranch Roadway Repair - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:55 PM Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 16 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric I Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces • • 18.00 Acre 18.00 784,080.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Rural Climate Zone 4 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 0.029 Project Characteristics - Land Use - This is for a water line and 2 troughs. The acreage disturbed is 18 acres. Precipitation Freq (Days) 64 Operational Year 2021 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 Construction Phase - 8 days of trenching activity, 2 days grading afterwards. site already prepared. Off -road Equipment - Only trenching is planned. Off -road Equipment - Only one needed. Off -road Equipment - Only one needed. Trips and VMT - Assume 3 worker trips/day. On -road Fugitive Dust - Onroad fugitive dust will be generated from the trenching and grading operations. Vehicles are not expected to exceed 30 mph. Demolition - Assume no demolition needed. CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 16 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Grading - 0.75 miles * 5280 feet/mile = 3960 feet 3960 * 3 feet wide * 5 feet deep = 59400 ft3 soil 100 feet on each side of trench * 2 sides * 3960 ft = 792000 ft2 A9chafectural oating5 one will beu secres Vehicle Trips - No operational trips ae expected. Road Dust - The area being worked on is grassland. Assumed 30 mph max speed for the unpaved road around the project. Woodstoves - NA Consumer Products - NA Area Coating - NA Landscape Equipment - NA Energy Use - NA Water And Wastewater - A solar pump was identified as the power source for pumping Water. Solid Waste - NA Land Use Change - Assume the trenchin area land use will not change. Sequestration - Project does not include planting trees as mitigation. Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - No mitigation is planned. Mobile Land Use Mitigation - No mitigation is planned. Mobile Commute Mitigation - No mitigation is planned. Area Mitigation - No mitigation is planned. Energy Mitigation - The solar pump can be consiered mitigation, but is not included here bcause the amount of electricity use is unknown. Mitigatiion is not needed, because emissions will be very liow. Water Mitigation - No mitigation planned. Waste Mitigation - No mitigation planned. Operational Off -Road Equipment - No offroad equipment will be used operationally. Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - No engines will be used operationally. Stationary Sources - Process Boilers - No boilers will be used operationally. Stationary Sources - User Defined - NA Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps EF - No engines will be used operationally. Stationary Sources - Process Boilers EF - No Boilers will be used operationally. CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation tblConstDustMitigation tblConstructionPhase tblGrading tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblProjectCharacteristics tblRoadDust tblRoadDust • Y • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent t 0 WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed F 0 T F 30.00 AcresOfGrading i 5.00 T 18.00 LoadFactor i 0.38 T 0.38 LoadFactor i 0.37 T 0.37 F 4 s OffRoadEquipmentType F : Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes UrbanizationLevel i Urban T Rural MeanVehicleSpeed F 40 T 30 i 1. • NumDays 0.5 40 2.00 OffRoadEquipmentType RoadPercentPave 100 Excavators 0 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 •i 4.5236 50.2495 32.4623 0.0635 15.7309 2.1750 17.9059 4.3844 2.0010 6.3854 • 0.0000 ' 6,157.078 6,157.078 1.9461 0.0000 6,205.731 • 4 4 1 3 Maximum 4.5236 50.2495 32.4623 0.0635 15.7309 2.1750 17.9059 4.3844 2.0010 6.3854 0.0000 6,157.078 6,157.078 1.9461 0.0000 6,205.731 11 4 4 3 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 •1 4.5236 50.2495 32.4623 0.0635 15.7309 2.1750 17.9059 4.3844 2.0010 6.3854 • 0.0000 6,157.078 6,157.078 1.9461 0.0000 6,205.731 1 • 3 3 1 3 Maximum 4.5236 50.2495 32.4623 0.0635 15.7309 2.1750 17.9059 4.3844 2.0010 6.3854 0.0000 6,157.078 6,157.078 1.9461 0.0000 6,205.731 II 3 3 3 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 0.3675 2.0000e- 1.8400e- 0.0000 1 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • i 3.9400e- 3.9400e- 1.0000e- I 4.2000e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 • .1 J .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 J • .1 J .1 T Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 11, J J J .1 J J J J ; J J J • Mobile •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.3675 2.0000e- 1.8400e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 3.9400e- 3.9400e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.2000e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 0.3675 2.0000e- I 1.8400e- 0.0000 1 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- ■ 3.9400e- 3.9400e- 1.0000e- I 4.2000e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 ; 003 003 005 i 003 J J .1 J J J J J i J J .1 Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • J .1 J .1 .1 J J J . J J .1 • Mobile •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • Total 0.3675 2.0000e- 1.8400e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 3.9400e- 3.9400e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.2000e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description I I I 1 :Grading :Grading 1/1/2020 :1/2/2020 I 5: 2: i 4 I I I 1 f T Yom---- 2 •trenching :Trenching '1/3/2020 '1/14/2020 P 5' 8: • Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 18 Acres of Paving: 18 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name a Grading :Excavators Offroad Equipment Type Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor 2 8.001 158: 0.38 1 ° Grading Grading Grading Grading trenching trenching trenching :Graders 1 8.00: 187: 0.41 ° 4 :Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.001 247: 0.40 - - - --+ ° :Scrapers 2 8.001 367: 0.48 I. - - - --+ ° +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.001 97: 0.37 - - - --1. ° :Trenchers 1 8.001 78: 0.50 I. 4 :Excavators I 1 8.001 158: 0.38 1 •:- F r :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1: 8.00: 97: 0.37 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Trips and VMT Page 7 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading 8: 20.00: 0.001 0.00: 10.80: 6.60: 20.00:LD_Mix IHDT_Mix f + r * f ..ems.......... f T 4. trenching 3'Y 8.00' 0.00' 0.00' 10.80: 6.60: 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix ; : HHDT } HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 Cote Category Ib/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 15.5666 0.0000 15.5666 4.3408 0.0000 4.3408 •• 0.0000 0.0000 .1 .1 .1 J J J J .1 ; .1 .1 J T Off -Road •u 4.4501 50.1975 31.9583 0.0620 2.1739 2.1739 2.0000 2.0000 • 6,005.865 6,005.865 1.9424 6,054.425 • 3 3 i 7 Total 4.4501 50.1975 31.9583 0.0620 15.5666 2.1739 17.7405 4.3408 2.0000 6.3408 6,005.865 6,005.865 1.9424 6,054.425 3 3 7 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.2 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 M. J J J J J J J J 11 J J r Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J .1 .1 .1 .1 J .1 It J .1 J I' Worker •i 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e- 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 • i 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 151.3055 003 003 004 003 Total 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e- 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 151.3055 003 003 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust i 15.5666 0.0000 15.5666 4.3408 0.0000 4.3408 •• 0.0000 0.0000 if J .1 J J J J .1 J .• J .1 .1 t Off -Road •i 4.4501 50.1975 31.9583 0.0620 2.1739 2.1739 2.0000 2.0000 • 0.0000 6,005.865 6,005.865 1.9424 6,054.425 • 3 3 1 7 Total 4.4501 50.1975 31.9583 0.0620 15.5666 2.1739 17.7405 4.3408 2.0000 6.3408 0.0000 6,005.865 6,005.865 1.9424 6,054.425 3 3 7 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.2 Grading - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •1 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e- 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 • i 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 151.3055 003 003 004 003 Total 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e- 0.1643 1.0600e- 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 0.0446 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 151.3055 003 003 004 003 3.3 trenching - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.8746 8.3179 8.1909 0.0117 0.5343 0.5343 0.4915 0.4915 •• i 1,128.980 1,128.980 0.3651 1,138.108 • 3 3 7 Total 0.8746 8.3179 8.1909 0.0117 0.5343 0.5343 0.4915 0.4915 1,128.980 1,128.980 0.3651 1,138.108 11 3 3 7 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.3 trenching - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •1 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 0.0657 4.3000e- 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 0.0178 • i 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 60.5222 004 004 004 003 Total 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 0.0657 4.3000e- 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 0.0178 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 60.5222 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.8746 8.3179 8.1909 0.0117 0.5343 0.5343 0.4915 0.4915 • 0.0000 i 1,128.980 1,128.980 0.3651 1,138.108 • • 3 3 7 Total 0.8746 8.3179 8.1909 0.0117 0.5343 0.5343 0.4915 0.4915 0.0000 1,128.980 1,128.980 0.3651 1,138.108 11 3 3 7 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.3 trenching - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J .1 .1 .1 .1 J .1 gr J .1 J 1• Worker •1 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 0.0657 4.3000e- 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 0.0178 • i 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 60.5222 004 004 004 003 Total 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 0.0657 4.3000e- 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 0.0178 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 60.5222 004 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Mitigated •� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '� , 1 91 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,a. . 1- 1. I- 4. 4- + 4- T L I- 4- 4. r Unmitigated •: 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 MI 4.2 Trip Summary Information Ave age Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 • • Total I 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I I 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W I H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary I Diverted I i Pass -by i Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces : 14.70 6.60 6.60 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0 0 . 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces : 0.575198' 0.040076: 0.193827: 0.113296: 0.016988: 0.005361: 0.017552: 0.025197: 0.002581: 0.002349: 0.005904: 0.000881: 0.0007891 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Enerav Use: N CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Attachment 8 Page 13 of 16 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day NaturalGas •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mitigated : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 NaturalGas • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 Unmitigated 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Non- 1 0 .i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces • i . I . 1 Total 11 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 1 0 •i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 0.3675 i 2.0000e- 1 1.8400e- 1 0.0000 1 1 1.0000e- 1 1.0000e- i 1 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • i 3.9400e- i 3.9400e- 1 1.0000e- i i 4.2000e- '1 005 1 003 005 005 1 005 005 . 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 i 003 .1 } } 4 4 4 4 4 4 r • i. } 4 4 Unmitigated • 0.3675 2.0000e- • 1.8400e- • 0.0000 • • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • • 3.9400e- • 3.9400e- • 1.0000e- • • 4.2000e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 16 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.0896 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 Coating :, J J J J J J J J V J J J Consumer .1 0.2777 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Products J J J J J J J J V J J J I' Landscaping • 1.7000e- 2.0000e- 1.8400e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 3.9400e- 3.9400e- 1.0000e- 4.2000e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 • 003 003 005 i 003 Total 0.3675 2.0000e- 1.8400e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 3.9400e- 3.9400e- 1.0000e- 4.2000e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory - lb/day lb/day Architectural 1 0.0896 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 Coating .1 J .1 .1 J J J J • 1 J J J Consumer .1 0.2777 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Products ; J J J J J J J J •• J J J f Landscaping • 1.7000e- 2.0000e- 1.8400e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- • 1 3.9400e- 3.9400e- 1.0000e- 4.2000e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 ; • 003 003 005 003 Total 0.3675 2.0000e- 1.8400e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e. 3.9400e- 3.9400e- 1.0000e- 4.2000e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 7.0 Water Detail CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 16 of 16 Date: 1/18/2019 2:12 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year l Horse Power l Load Factor l Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type L Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment 1 Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 23 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric I Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces • • 18.00 Acre 18.00 784,080.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Rural Climate Zone 4 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 0.029 Project Characteristics - Land Use - This is for a water line and 2 troughs. The acreage disturbed is 18 acres. Precipitation Freq (Days) 64 Operational Year 2021 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 Construction Phase - 8 days of trenching activity, 2 days grading afterwards. site already prepared. Off -road Equipment - Only trenching is planned. Off -road Equipment - Only one needed. Off -road Equipment - Only one needed. Trips and VMT - Assume 3 worker trips/day. On -road Fugitive Dust - Onroad fugitive dust will be generated from the trenching and grading operations. Vehicles are not expected to exceed 30 mph. Demolition - Assume no demolition needed. CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 23 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Grading - 0.75 miles * 5280 feet/mile = 3960 feet 3960 * 3 feet wide * 5 feet deep = 59400 ft3 soil 100 feet on each side of trench * 2 sides * 3960 ft = 792000 ft2 A9chafectural?Coating5 one will beu secres Vehicle Trips - No operational trips ae expected. Road Dust - The area being worked on is grassland. Assumed 30 mph max speed for the unpaved road around the project. Woodstoves - NA Consumer Products - NA Area Coating - NA Landscape Equipment - NA Energy Use - NA Water And Wastewater - A solar pump was identified as the power source for pumping Water. Solid Waste - NA Land Use Change - Assume the trenchin area land use will not change. Sequestration - Project does not include planting trees as mitigation. Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - No mitigation is planned. Mobile Land Use Mitigation - No mitigation is planned. Mobile Commute Mitigation - No mitigation is planned. Area Mitigation - No mitigation is planned. Energy Mitigation - The solar pump can be consiered mitigation, but is not included here bcause the amount of electricity use is unknown. Mitigatiion is not needed, because emissions will be very liow. Water Mitigation - No mitigation planned. Waste Mitigation - No mitigation planned. Operational Off -Road Equipment - No offroad equipment will be used operationally. Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - No engines will be used operationally. Stationary Sources - Process Boilers - No boilers will be used operationally. Stationary Sources - User Defined - NA Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps EF - No engines will be used operationally. Stationary Sources - Process Boilers EF - No Boilers will be used operationally. CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation tblConstDustMitigation tblConstructionPhase tblGrading tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblProjectCharacteristics tblRoadDust tblRoadDust • Y • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent ✓ 0 WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed - 0 T F 30.00 AcresOfGrading i 5.00 T 18.00 LoadFactor i 0.38 T 0.38 LoadFactor i 0.37 T 0.37 F 4 OffRoadEquipmentType F : Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes UrbanizationLevel i Urban T Rural MeanVehicleSpeed F 40 T 30 i 1. • NumDays 0.5 40 2.00 OffRoadEquipmentType RoadPercentPave 100 Excavators 0 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 .' 8.1200e- 0.0836 0.0660 1.1000e- 0.0160 4.3100e- 0.0203 4.4500e- 3.9700e- 8.4200e- • 0.0000 i 9.9052 9.9052 3.1000e- 0.0000 9.9826 003 004 003 003 003 003 ; • • 003 Maximum 8.1200e- 0.0836 0.0660 1.1000e- 0.0160 4.3100e- 0.0203 4.4500e- 3.9700e- 8.4200e- 0.0000 9.9052 9.9052 3.1000e- 0.0000 9.9826 11 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year - tons/yr MT/yr 2020 8.1200e- 0.0836 0.0660 1.1000e- 0.0160 4.3100e- 0.0203 4.4500e- 3.9700e- 8.4200e- • 0.0000 i 9.9052 9.9052 3.1000e- 0.0000 9.9826 • 003 004 003 003 003 003 ; • 003 Maximum 8.1200e- 0.0836 0.0660 1.1000e- 0.0160 4.3100e- 0.0203 4.4500e- 3.9700e- 8.4200e- 0.0000 9.9052 9.9052 3.1000e- 0.0000 9.9826 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2020 3-31-2020 0.0787 0.0787 Highest 0.0787 0.0787 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 0.0671 0.0000 1.7000e- I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 3.2000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.4000e- ;9 004 i : 004 004 i 004 fi J J J J J J J J ; l J J J T Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 f J J J J J J J J . J J J T Mobile •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 f J J J J J J J J ; J J .1 T Waste • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 f J J J J J J J J V J J J T Water • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0671 0.0000 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area .i 9 ,l Energy .1 q 'I fl Mobile .1 Waste • Water • 0.0671 0.0000 1 1.7000e- 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 004 i ; J J J J J J J J V 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 * 0.0000 1 1 ; 1 1 J J J J J J J J V 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a 0.0000 ■ J J J J J J J J V 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 * 0.0000 .1 J J .1 J J J J V 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a 0.0000 ■ ■ ' 3.2000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 1 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 004 i i 004 J J J i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 J J J i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 J J J i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J J .1 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0671 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fug'tive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fug'tive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 2.3 Vegetation Vegetation CO2e Category 1 MT New Trees • 0.0000 • Vegetation Land • 0.0000 Change • Total 0.0000 3.0 Construction Detail Attachment 8 Page 7 of 23 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 2 :trenching :Grading 01/1/2020 11/2/2020 1 5: 2: r T 4 Y C I. :Trenching :1/3/2020 '1/14/2020 5: 8: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 18 Acres of Paving: 18 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment :Grading CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Phase Name Grading Grading Offroad Equipment Type I 1 :Excavators 2; 8.001 158: 0.38 :Graders 1 ; 8.001 187: 0.41 Grading :Rubber Tired Dozers 1 ; 8.001 247 : 0.40 2; 8.001 367: 0.48 Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.001 97: 0.37 1 8.001 78 : 0.50 Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power 1 Load Factor Grading :Scrapers trenching trenching trenching :Trenchers :Excavators ; T •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes • t 1 ; 8.001 158 : 0.38 F r I. 1: 8.00: 97: 0.37 • 4 • Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class I Grading 8: 20.00. 0.001 0.00: 10.80: 6.60: 20.00:LD_Mix iHDT_Mix I. T F t f --r T f trenching 3' 8.00' 0.00' 0.00' 10.80' 6.60' 20.00'LD_Mix •HDT_Mix 'HHDT HHDT T 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i 0.0156 0.0000 0.0156 4.3400e- 0.0000 4.3400e- : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 : J J J J J J J J J J J I. Off -Road • 4.4500e- 0.0502 0.0320 6.0000e- 2.1700e- 2.1700e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- • 0.0000 i 5.4484 5.4484 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.4925 003 005 003 003 003 003 . • 003 Total 4.4500e- 0.0502 0.0320 6.0000e- 0.0156 2.1700e- 0.0177 4.3400e- 2.0000e- 6.3400e- 0.0000 5.4484 5.4484 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.4925 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker • 7.0000e- 5.0000e- 4.9000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- • 0.0000 1 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 . • Total 7.0000e- 5.0000e- 4.9000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Grading - 2020 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i 0.0156 0.0000 0.0156 4.3400e- 0.0000 4.3400e- : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 : J J J J J J J J J J J I. Off -Road • 4.4500e- 0.0502 0.0320 6.0000e- 2.1700e- 2.1700e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- • 0.0000 i 5.4484 5.4484 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.4925 003 005 003 003 003 003 . • 003 Total 4.4500e- 0.0502 0.0320 6.0000e- 0.0156 2.1700e- 0.0177 4.3400e- 2.0000e- 6.3400e- 0.0000 5.4484 5.4484 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.4925 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker • 7.0000e- 5.0000e- 4.9000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- • 0.0000 1 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 . • Total 7.0000e- 5.0000e- 4.9000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 trenching - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road • 3.5000e- 0.0333 0.0328 5.0000e- 2.1400e- 2.1400e- 1.9700e- 1.9700e- • 0.0000 i 4.0968 4.0968 1.3200e- 0.0000 4.1299 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 003 Total 3.5000e- 0.0333 0.0328 5.0000e- 2.1400e- 2.1400e- 1.9700e- 1.9700e- 0.0000 4.0968 4.0968 1.3200e- 0.0000 4.1299 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •i i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker • 1.1000e- 8.0000e- 7.9000e- 0.0000 2.5000e- 0.0000 2.5000e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- • 0.0000 1 0.2215 0.2215 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2217 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 . 005 Total 1.1000e- 8.0000e- 7.9000e- 0.0000 2.5000e- 0.0000 2.5000e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 0.0000 0.2215 0.2215 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2217 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 I 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 trenching - 2020 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road • 3.5000e- 0.0333 0.0328 5.0000e- 2.1400e- 2.1400e- 1.9700e- 1.9700e- • 0.0000 i 4.0968 4.0968 1.3200e- 0.0000 4.1299 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 003 Total 3.5000e- 0.0333 0.0328 5.0000e- 2.1400e- 2.1400e- 1.9700e- 1.9700e- 0.0000 4.0968 4.0968 1.3200e- 0.0000 4.1299 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •i i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 . Worker • 1.1000e- 8.0000e- 7.9000e- 0.0000 2.5000e- 0.0000 2.5000e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- • 0.0000 1 0.2215 0.2215 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2217 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 . 005 Total 1.1000e- 8.0000e- 7.9000e- 0.0000 2.5000e- 0.0000 2.5000e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 0.0000 0.2215 0.2215 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2217 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 I 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Attachment 8 Page 13 of 23 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Unmitigated . 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 4.2 Trip Summary Information _ Ave age Daily Trip Rate _ Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 • • Total I 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I I 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces : 14.70 6.60 6.60 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 • . 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA LDT1 I LDT2 MDV I LHD1 LHD2 I MHD HHD I OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH 1 Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.575198: 0.040076; 0.193827; 0.113296; 0.016988; 0.005361; 0.017552; 0.025197; 0.002581; 0.002349; 0.005904; 0.000881; 0.0007891 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.0 Energy Detail Attachment 8 Page 14 of 23 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx Co SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated •i 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .I .1 .1 J Electricity •I 1 1 1 i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 Unmitigated • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 NaturalGas • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 Mitigated •▪ 1 11 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . • 0.0000 . 0.0000 Unmitigated • • • • • v • • • • • • • • • • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 1 1 4. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 1 0 •i 1 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 * 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 i .1 i . i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 16 of 23 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 1 0 •i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 1 0 �i i . i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 0.0671 i 0.0000 1 1.7000e- i 0.0000 I i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 3.2000e- 1 3.2000e- i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 3.4000e- •1 I 1 004 004 004 i 004 '1 • 1 .I• 4. } 4. } 4. } 4. I. T m 4. 4. } } Unmitigated • 0.0671 • 0.0000 • 1.7000e- • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 3.2000e- • 3.2000e- • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 3.4000e- 004 004 004 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural • 0.0164 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating T Consumer •1 0.0507 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products T Landscaping • 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 3.2000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.4000e- 005 004 • 004 004 004 Total 0.0671 0.0000 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural .i 0.0164 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer .1 0.0507 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Landscaping • 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 3.2000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.4000e- 005 004 • 004 004 i 004 Total 0.0671 0.0000 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 004 004 004 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 19 of 23 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 1 Category 1 MT/yr Mitigated •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 . Unmitigated . 0.0000 : 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal 1 MT/yr Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 1 0 / 0 •1 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Attachment 8 Page 20 of 23 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces i 0 / 0 .i i . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 '� i .1. F 4 r Unmitigated . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 21 of 23 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces i 0 .i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces i 0 .i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0 Operational Offroad I Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 10.0 Stationary Equipment Page 22 of 23 Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT Unmitigated : 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 11.1 Vegetation Land Change Vegetation Type Attachment 8 Page 23 of 23 Date: 1/18/2019 2:10 PM Toto Ranch RMP - Water line and 2 troughs - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Initial/Fina I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Acres MT Grassland I 0 / 0 •1 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 11.2 Net New Trees Species Class Number of Trees Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT Pine I 0 �i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 f 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 13 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer Small Pond Management San Mateo County, Summer 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric 1 Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population City Park • • 0.76 Acre 0.76 33,105.60 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Climate Zone 5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 0.029 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70 Operational Year 2024 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Worst case is 6 weeks/30 days Off -road Equipment - CaIEEMod assumes 15 equipment hours total for a site this size. Adjusted hours for client -provided fleet accordingly Grading - Assumes total size of pond CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 13 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer Table Name 1 Column Name Default Value 1 New Value tblConstructionPhase • NumDays i 2.00 • 30.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate I 8/31/2023 10/10/2023 t tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 0.00 0.76 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor F 0.38 • 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor F 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor F 0.38 • 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType t Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType F Off -Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rollers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount I 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours + 1.00 2.50 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 2.50 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 13 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2023 •i 0.6078 5.3087 5.2430 0.0122 2.0320 0.2400 2.2720 1.0700 0.2208 1.2909 ' 0.0000 ' 1,187.212 1,187.212 0.3523 0.0000 1,196.021 ■ 7 7 i 2 Maximum 0.6078 5.3087 5.2430 0.0122 2.0320 0.2400 2.2720 1.0700 0.2208 1.2909 0.0000 1,187.212 1,187.212 0.3523 0.0000 1,196.021 1 7 7 2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year - lb/day lb/day 2023 •i 0.6078 5.3087 5.2430 0.0122 2.0320 0.2400 2.2720 1.0700 0.2208 1.2909 • 0.0000 1,187.212 1,187.212 0.3523 0.0000 1,196.021 ;i • 7 7 i 2 Maximum 0.6078 5.3087 5.2430 0.0122 2.0320 0.2400 2.2720 1.0700 0.2208 1.2909 0.0000 1,187.212 1,187.212 0.3523 0.0000 1,196.021 II 1 7 7 2 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 13 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM ROG - NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area •' 1.7100e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 1.7000e- 1.7000e- 0.0000 I 1.8000e- 003 005 004 004 004 .1 J J J J .1 J J • J J J T Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 e J J J J J J J J ; J J J • Mobile • 0.0216 0.0515 0.2145 7.9000e- 0.0784 6.1000e- 0.0790 0.0210 5.7000e- 0.0216 • i 80.0436 80.0436 2.7400e- 80.1121 004 004 004 ; • 003 Total 0.0233 0.0515 0.2146 7.9000e- 0.0784 6.1000e- 0.0790 0.0210 5.7000e- 0.0216 80.0438 80.0438 2.7400e- 0.0000 80.1122 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area •' 1.7100e- 0.0000 I 8.0000e- 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 1.7000e- 1.7000e- 0.0000 I 1.8000e- 003 005 . 004 004 i 004 .r J J J J J J J J i J J J Energy •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r. .• J J J .1 J J J J . J J .1 • Mobile 0.0216 0.0515 0.2145 7.9000e- 0.0784 6.1000e- 0.0790 0.0210 5.7000e- 0.0216 • 80.0436 80.0436 2.7400e- 80.1121 004 004 004 ; 003 Total 0.0233 0.0515 0.2146 7.9000e- 0.0784 6.1000e- 0.0790 0.0210 5.7000e- 0.0216 80.0438 80.0438 2.7400e- 0.0000 80.1122 11 004 004 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 13 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 :Grading • -Grading 8/30/2023 :10/10/2023 5: 30: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0.76 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Grading :Excavators Grading :Off -Highway Trucks Grading Grading Grading Grading :Rollers :Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 1 2.501 158: 0.38 .1 4 1 2.501 402: 0.38 1y t :Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1 ; 2.501 247: 0.40 :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2: 2.50: 97: 0.37 2.501 8.001 80: 81? 0.38 0.73 Trips and VMT CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 13 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading 6: 15.00: 0.00' 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00•LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix ,HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Grading - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e - Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 1.9088 0.0000 1.9088 1.0374 0.0000 1.0374 . 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J .1 .1 .1 J J .1 . .1 J T Off -Road •i 0.5735 5.2908 4.9928 0.0112 0.2393 0.2393 0.2202 0.2202 • 1,084.358 1,084.358 0.3507 1,093.125 • 0 0 i 6 Total 0.5735 5.2908 4.9928 0.0112 1.9088 0.2393 2.1481 1.0374 0.2202 1.2575 1,084.358 1,084.358 0.3507 1,093.125 0 0 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 13 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 3.2 Grading - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J J J J J J J J J I' Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J .1 .1 .1 .1 J .1 gr J .1 J t Worker •i 0.0343 0.0180 0.2503 1.0300e- 0.1232 6.9000e- 0.1239 0.0327 6.4000e- 0.0333 • i 102.8546 102.8546 1.6400e- 102.8956 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0343 0.0180 0.2503 1.0300e- 0.1232 6.9000e- 0.1239 0.0327 6.4000e- 0.0333 102.8546 102.8546 1.6400e- 102.8956 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust i 1.9088 0.0000 1.9088 1.0374 0.0000 1.0374 • 0.0000 0.0000 if J .1 J J J J .1 J •• J .1 .1 t Off -Road •i 0.5735 5.2908 4.9928 0.0112 0.2393 0.2393 0.2202 0.2202 • 0.0000 1,084.358 1,084.358 0.3507 1,093.125 • 0 0 1 6 Total 0.5735 5.2908 4.9928 0.0112 1.9088 0.2393 2.1481 1.0374 0.2202 1.2575 0.0000 1,084.358 1,084.358 0.3507 1,093.125 0 0 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 13 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 3.2 Grading - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J .1 .1 .1 .1 J .1 gr J .1 J t Worker •1 0.0343 0.0180 0.2503 1.0300e- 0.1232 6.9000e- 0.1239 0.0327 6.4000e- 0.0333 • i 102.8546 102.8546 1.6400e- 102.8956 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0343 0.0180 0.2503 1.0300e- 0.1232 6.9000e- 0.1239 0.0327 6.4000e- 0.0333 102.8546 102.8546 1.6400e- 102.8956 003 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 13 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Mitigated 9 0.0216 i 0.0515 i 0.2145 : 7.9000e- i 0.0784 i 6.1000e- 1 0.0790 i 0.0210 i 5.7000e- 0.0216 • i 80.0436 i 80.0436 i 2.7400e- i i 80.1121 91 1 1 004 1 1 004 1 1 1 004 • i 1 1 003 1 1 91 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,a. . i• 1. .1- } } 4. i. T �. I- 4- 4. r Unmitigated • 0.0216 • 0.0515 • 0.2145 • 7.9000e- • 0.0784 • 6.1000e- • 0.0790 • 0.0210 • 5.7000e- • 0.0216 • • 80.0436 • 80.0436 • 2.7400e- • • 80.1121 004 004 004 003 MI 4.2 Trip Summary Information Ave age Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park i 1.44 17.29 12.72 • 11,344 • 11,344 Total I 1.44 I 17.29 12.72 I 11,344 1 11,344 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W I H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary I Diverted I i Pass -by i City Park • 9.50 7.30 7.30 • 33.00 48.00 19.00 • 28 6 . 66 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH I City Park : 0.465886: 0.050507: 0.268464: 0.141721: 0.017188: 0.007113: 0.024629: 0.006618: 0.004259: 0.003067: 0.009235: 0.000505: 0.000808 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Enerav Use: N CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Attachment 8 Page 10 of 13 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaturalGas •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 � 0.0000 0.0000 : 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mitigated : 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -. 1 NaturalGas • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 Unmitigated 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park i 0 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I I . . 1 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 13 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park 1 0 •i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 1.7100e- 1 0.0000 1 8.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 0.0000 1.7000e- i 1.7000e- 1 0.0000 1 i 1.8000e- •i �i 003 005 1 1 1 1 1 i 004 ,i i i i i i 1 i : i 004 i 004 i 1 .� 1- } } 4 } 4 4 } r • i. } 4 4 Unmitigated •g 1.7100e- g 0.0000 • 8.0000e- • 0.0000 g • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • g 0.0000 • 0.0000 • g 1.7000e- • 1.7000e- g 0.0000 • • 1.8000e- 003 005 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 13 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Coating :1 Consumer • 1.7100e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Products 003 Landscaping • 1.0000e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 1.7000e- 1.7000e- 0.0000 1.8000e- 005 005 • 004 004 i 004 Total 1.7200e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7000e- 1.7000e- 0.0000 1.8000e- 003 005 004 004 004 Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory - lb/day lb/day Architectural 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 Coating J J J J J J J J J Fe V Consumer • 1.7100e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Products 003 • J J J J J J J J J J V Landscaping • 1.0000e- i 0.0000 8.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 1.7000e- 1.7000e- 0.0000 1.8000e- 005 005 • • 004 004 004 Total 1.7200e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7000e- 1.7000e- 0.0000 1.8000e- 003 005 004 004 004 7.0 Water Detail CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 13 of 13 Date: 1/30/2019 1:56 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year l Horse Power l Load Factor l Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type L Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment 1 Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Small Pond Management San Mateo County, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric 1 Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population City Park • • 0.76 Acre 0.76 33,105.60 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Climate Zone 5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 0.029 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70 Operational Year 2024 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Worst case is 6 weeks/30 days Off -road Equipment - CaIEEMod assumes 15 equipment hours total for a site this size. Adjusted hours for client -provided fleet accordingly Grading - Assumes total size of pond CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Table Name 1 Column Name Default Value 1 New Value tblConstructionPhase • NumDays i 2.00 • 30.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate I 8/31/2023 10/10/2023 t tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 0.00 0.76 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor F 0.38 • 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor F 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor F 0.38 • 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType t Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType F Off -Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rollers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount I 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours + 1.00 2.50 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 2.50 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 18 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2023 •' 9.1200e- 0.0797 0.0784 1.8000e- 0.0304 3.6000e- 0.0340 0.0160 3.3100e- 0.0193 • 0.0000 i 16.0744 16.0744 4.7900e- 0.0000 16.1943 003 004 003 003 : • • 003 Maximum 9.1200e- 0.0797 0.0784 1.8000e- 0.0304 3.6000e- 0.0340 0.0160 3.3100e- 0.0193 0.0000 16.0744 16.0744 4.7900e- 0.0000 16.1943 11 003 004 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year - tons/yr MT/yr 2023 • 9.1200e- 0.0797 0.0784 1.8000e- 0.0304 3.6000e- 0.0340 0.0160 3.3100e- 0.0193 • 0.0000 i 16.0744 16.0744 4.7900e- 0.0000 16.1942 003 004 003 003 ; • 003 Maximum 9.1200e- 0.0797 0.0784 1.8000e- 0.0304 3.6000e- 0.0340 0.0160 3.3100e- 0.0193 0.0000 16.0744 16.0744 4.7900e- 0.0000 16.1942 II 003 004 003 003 003 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 18 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 8-15-2023 9-30-2023 0.0676 0.0676 Highest 0.0676 0.0676 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 3.1000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 I 0.0000 1.0000e- ;� 004 005 i 005 005 1 i 005 : f J J J J J J J J 4, J J J T Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 f J J J J J J J J J J J r Mobile • 1.0900e- 3.0200e- 0.0119 4.0000e- 4.2100e- 3.0000e- 4.2400e- 1.1300e- 3.0000e- 1.1600e- • 0.0000 i 3.8740 3.8740 1.4000e- 0.0000 3.8774 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 : 004 f J J J J J J J J ; J J J T Waste • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0142 i 0.0000 0.0142 8.4000e- 0.0000 0.0352 004 f J J J J J J J J le J J J T Water • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.9220 0.9220 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.9256 005 005 i Total 1.4000e- 3.0200e- 0.0119 4.0000e- 4.2100e- 3.0000e- 4.2400e- 1.1300e- 3.0000e- 1.1600e- 0.0142 4.7960 4.8102 1.0200e- 1.0000e- 4.8383 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 003 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 18 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •I •1 ,l Energy •i q •I , Mobile • Waste •i ir Water .1 3.1000e- 0.0000 1 1.0000e- 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 004 005 i J J J J J J J J V 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 1 ; 1 1 • l J .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 le 1.0900e- 3.0200e- I 0.0119 4.0000e- 1 4.2100e- 3.0000e- 4.2400e- 1.1300e- 3.0000e- 1.1600e- • 0.0000 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 J J J J J J J J . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0142 J J J J J J J J V 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • ' 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 005 i i 005 J J J i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 .1 .1 .1 i 3.8740 3.8740 1.4000e- 1 0.0000 3.8774 004 J J J i 0.0000 0.0142 8.4000e- 0.0000 0.0352 004 J J J i 0.9220 0.9220 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.9256 005 005 i Total 1.4000e- 003 3.0200e- 003 0.0119 4.0000e- 005 4.2100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2400e- 003 1.1300e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.1600e- 003 0.0142 4.7960 4.8102 1.0200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.8383 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fug'tive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fug'tive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 :Grading :Grading :8/30/2023 :10/10/2023 5: 30: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 6 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0.76 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading :Excavators ; 1 :Off -Highway Trucks ; 1 :Rollers :Concrete/Industrial Saws :Rubber Tired Dozers :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2.501 158: 0.38 ° 2.501 ° 1 2.501 0; 8.001 1 F 2: ° 402: 80: 81? 0.38 0.38 0.73 2.501 247: 0.40 ° 2.50 97 : 0.37 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Grading • . 6' 15.00' 0.00' 0.00' 10.80 7.30' 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 18 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 3.2 Grading - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust -i 0.0286 0.0000 0.0286 0.0156 0.0000 0.0156 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J J J J J J J J V J J J I. Off -Road • 8.6000e- 0.0794 0.0749 1.7000e- 3.5900e- 3.5900e- 3.3000e- 3.3000e- • 0.0000 i 14.7557 14.7557 4.7700e- 0.0000 14.8750 003 004 003 003 003 003 . • 003 Total 8.6000e- 0.0794 0.0749 1.7000e- 0.0286 3.5900e- 0.0322 0.0156 3.3000e- 0.0189 0.0000 14.7557 14.7557 4.7700e- 0.0000 14.8750 003 004 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J •• I J J J Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J J J J J J . J J J 4. Worker • 5.1000e- 3.1000e- 3.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.7700e- 1.0000e- 1.7800e- 4.7000e- 1.0000e- 4.8000e- • 0.0000 1 1.3187 1.3187 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.3192 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 . • 005 Total 5.1000e- 3.1000e- 3.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.7700e- 1.0000e- 1.7800e- 4.7000e- 1.0000e- 4.8000e- 0.0000 1.3187 1.3187 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.3192 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 18 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 3.2 Grading - 2023 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i 0.0286 0.0000 0.0286 0.0156 0.0000 0.0156 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J J J J J J J J V J J J I. Off -Road • 8.6000e- 0.0794 0.0749 1.7000e- 3.5900e- 3.5900e- 3.3000e- 3.3000e- • 0.0000 i 14.7557 14.7557 4.7700e- 0.0000 14.8750 003 004 003 003 003 003 . • 003 Total 8.6000e- 0.0794 0.0749 1.7000e- 0.0286 3.5900e- 0.0322 0.0156 3.3000e- 0.0189 0.0000 14.7557 14.7557 4.7700e- 0.0000 14.8750 003 004 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J J J J J J . J J J 4. Worker • 5.1000e- 3.1000e- 3.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.7700e- 1.0000e- 1.7800e- 4.7000e- 1.0000e- 4.8000e- • 0.0000 1 1.3187 1.3187 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.3192 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 . • 005 Total 5.1000e- 3.1000e- 3.5000e- 1.0000e- 1.7700e- 1.0000e- 1.7800e- 4.7000e- 1.0000e- 4.8000e- 0.0000 1.3187 1.3187 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.3192 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Attachment 8 Page 9 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 1.0900e- 1 3.0200e- 1 0.0119 4.0000e- i 4.2100e- 1 3.0000e- i 4.2400e- 1 1.1300e- 1 3.0000e- 1.1600e- 0.0000 i 3.8740 i 3.8740 1 1.4000e- 1 0.0000 3.8774 •' 003 1 003 1 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 1 003 1 005 003 . ' 1 1 004 1 '� 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 Unmitigated •• 1.0900e- 3.0200e- • 0.0119 • 4.0000e- 4.2100e- • 3.0000e- • 4.2400e- • 1.1300e- • 3.0000e- • 1.1600e- • 0.0000 3.8740 • 3.8740 • 1.4000e- • 0.0000 • 3.8774 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 4.2 Trip Summary Information _ Ave age Daily Trip Rate - Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park + 1.44 17.29 12.72 • 11,344 • 11,344 Total I 1.44 I 17.29 12.72 I 11,344 I 11,344 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by City Park • 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 • . 66 28 6 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA : 0.465886: 0.050507; 0.268464; 0.141721; 0.017188; 0.007113; 0.024629; 0.006618; 0.004259; 0.003067; 0.009235; 0.000505; 0.0008081 LDT1 I LDT2 MDV I LHD1 LHD2 I MHD HHD I OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH City Park CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.0 Energy Detail Attachment 8 Page 10 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx Co SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated •1 i i . i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 .I .1 Electricity •I i i 1 i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 Unmitigated ,� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 NaturalGas •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 Mitigated •▪ 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 NaturalGas • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . • 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • • • • v • • • • • • • • • • • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 1 1 4. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 18 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 1 0 : i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 * 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 .1 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 12 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 1 0 : i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 1 0 :i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 18 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 3.1000e- i 0.0000 : 1.0000e- i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 1.0000e- : 1.0000e- i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 1.000Oe- �: 004 1 1 005 . 005 005 i 005 '� ;1. 4. 1- 4. • 1 1- 1. } 1. I. . ;. 1. } 1- Unmitigated •• 3.1000e- • 0.0000 • 1.0000e- • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 1.0000e- 004 005 005 005 005 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating r Consumer • 3.1000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products 004 r Landscaping •i 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- • 005 • 005 005 005 Total 3.1000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 005 005 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 18 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 Coating ;i Consumer • 3.1000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products 7, 004 Landscaping .1 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 • 005 005 i 005 Total 3.1000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 005 005 005 005 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category ■ MT/yr Mitigated •1 0.9220 : 4.0000e- i 1.0000e- 1 0.9256 •1 •1 1 005 1 005 1 ei• 4 i• r Unmitigated . 0.9220 . 4.0000e- • 1.0000e- • 0.9256 005 005 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 15 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal 1 MT/yr City Park -I I 0 / ■I 0.905526 : I - 0.9220 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 005 005 0.9256 Total 0.9220 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.9256 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Attachment 8 Page 16 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 1 0 / .i 0.9220 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.9256 0.905526 : 005 005 i i Total 0.9220 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.9256 005 005 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •1 0.0142 i 8.4000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.0352 •1 004 1 1 ei• r r Unmitigated . 0.0142 8.4000e- • 0.0000 • 0.0352 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 17 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr City Park i 0.07 i i 0.0142 8.4000e- 0.0000 0.0352 004 Total 0.0142 8.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.0352 Mitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr City Park i 0.07 • 0.0142 8.4000e- 0.0000 0.0352 i 004 i : Total 0.0142 8.4000e- 0.0000 0.0352 004 9.0 Operational Offroad I Equipment Type 1 Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 10.0 Stationary Equipment Page 18 of 18 Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 1:57 PM Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 13 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer XS Small Pond Management San Mateo County, Summer 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric 1 Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population City Park • • 0.06 Acre 0.06 2,613.60 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Climate Zone 5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 0.029 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70 Operational Year 2024 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Worst case is 6 weeks/30 days Off -road Equipment - CaIEEMod assumes 15 equipment hours total for a site this size. Adjusted hours for client -provided fleet accordingly Grading - Assumes total size of pond CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 13 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer Table Name 1 Column Name Default Value 1 New Value tblConstructionPhase tblConstructionPhase tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment • • • • • • • • NumDays i PhaseEndDate I I LoadFactor i LoadFactor LoadFactor OffRoadEquipmentType ir OffRoadEquipmentType OffRoadEquipmentType OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount UsageHours UsageHours 4 2.00 8/16/2023 0.38 0.38 0.38 1.00 1.00 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 15.00 9/4/2023 0.38 0.38 0.38 Excavators Off -Highway Trucks Rollers 0.00 2.50 6.00 2.50 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 13 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2023 •i 0.6078 5.3087 5.2430 0.0122 2.0051 0.2400 2.2451 1.0671 0.2208 1.2880 ' 0.0000 ' 1,187.212 1,187.212 0.3523 0.0000 1,196.021 ■ 7 7 i 2 Maximum 0.6078 5.3087 5.2430 0.0122 2.0051 0.2400 2.2451 1.0671 0.2208 1.2880 0.0000 1,187.212 1,187.212 0.3523 0.0000 1,196.021 1 7 7 2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year - lb/day lb/day 2023 •i 0.6078 5.3087 5.2430 0.0122 2.0051 0.2400 2.2451 1.0671 0.2208 1.2880 • 0.0000 1,187.212 1,187.212 0.3523 0.0000 1,196.021 ;i • 7 7 i 2 Maximum 0.6078 5.3087 5.2430 0.0122 2.0051 0.2400 2.2451 1.0671 0.2208 1.2880 0.0000 1,187.212 1,187.212 0.3523 0.0000 1,196.021 II 1 7 7 2 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 13 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area •' 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 I 1.0000e- 004 005 005 005 005 .1 J .1 .1 .1 .1 J • .1 J .1 T Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J J .1 J J J J ; J J J • Mobile • 1.7000e- 4.0600e- 0.0169 6.0000e- 6.1900e- 5.0000e- 6.2400e- 1.6600e- 4.0000e- 1.7000e- • i 6.3192 6.3192 2.2000e- 6.3246 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 : • 004 Total 1.8400e- 4.0600e- 0.0169 6.0000e- 6.1900e- 5.0000e- 6.2400e- 1.6600e- 4.0000e- 1.7000e- 6.3192 6.3192 2.2000e- 0.0000 6.3247 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area •' 1.4000e- 0.0000 I 1.0000e- 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 I 1.0000e- 004 005 ; 005 005 i 005 .r J J J J J J J i J J J Energy •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J J .1 J J J J . J J .1 • Mobile • 1.7000e- 4.0600e- 0.0169 6.0000e- 6.1900e- 5.0000e- 6.2400e- 1.6600e- 4.0000e- 1.7000e- • 6.3192 6.3192 2.2000e- 6.3246 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 ; 004 Total 1.8400e- 4.0600e- 0.0169 6.0000e- 6.1900e- 5.0000e- 6.2400e- 1.6600e- 4.0000e- 1.7000e- 6.3192 6.3192 2.2000e- 0.0000 6.3247 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 .11 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 13 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 :Grading • -Grading 8/15/2023 :9/4/2023 5: 15: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Grading :Excavators Grading :Off -Highway Trucks Grading Grading Grading Grading :Rollers :Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 1 2.501 158: 0.38 .1 4 1 2.501 402: 0.38 1y t :Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1 ; 2.501 247: 0.40 :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2: 2.50: 97: 0.37 2.501 8.001 80: 81? 0.38 0.73 Trips and VMT CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 13 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading 6: 15.00: 0.00' 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00•LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix ,HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Grading - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e - Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 1.8819 0.0000 1.8819 1.0345 0.0000 1.0345 . 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J .1 .1 .1 J J .1 . .1 J T Off -Road •i 0.5735 5.2908 4.9928 0.0112 0.2393 0.2393 0.2202 0.2202 • 1,084.358 1,084.358 0.3507 1,093.125 • 0 0 i 6 Total 0.5735 5.2908 4.9928 0.0112 1.8819 0.2393 2.1212 1.0345 0.2202 1.2546 1,084.358 1,084.358 0.3507 1,093.125 0 0 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 13 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 3.2 Grading - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J J J J J J J J J I' Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J .1 .1 .1 .1 J .1 gr J .1 J t Worker •i 0.0343 0.0180 0.2503 1.0300e- 0.1232 6.9000e- 0.1239 0.0327 6.4000e- 0.0333 • i 102.8546 102.8546 1.6400e- 102.8956 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0343 0.0180 0.2503 1.0300e- 0.1232 6.9000e- 0.1239 0.0327 6.4000e- 0.0333 102.8546 102.8546 1.6400e- 102.8956 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust i 1.8819 0.0000 1.8819 1.0345 0.0000 1.0345 • 0.0000 0.0000 if J .1 J J J J .1 J •• J .1 .1 t Off -Road •i 0.5735 5.2908 4.9928 0.0112 0.2393 0.2393 0.2202 0.2202 • 0.0000 1,084.358 1,084.358 0.3507 1,093.125 • 0 0 1 6 Total 0.5735 5.2908 4.9928 0.0112 1.8819 0.2393 2.1212 1.0345 0.2202 1.2546 0.0000 1,084.358 1,084.358 0.3507 1,093.125 0 0 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 13 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 3.2 Grading - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J .1 .1 .1 .1 J .1 gr J .1 J t Worker •1 0.0343 0.0180 0.2503 1.0300e- 0.1232 6.9000e- 0.1239 0.0327 6.4000e- 0.0333 • i 102.8546 102.8546 1.6400e- 102.8956 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0343 0.0180 0.2503 1.0300e- 0.1232 6.9000e- 0.1239 0.0327 6.4000e- 0.0333 102.8546 102.8546 1.6400e- 102.8956 003 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 13 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day Mitigated 9 1.7000e- 4.0600e- 0.0169 : 6.0000e- : 6.1900e- 5.0000e- : 6.2400e- 1.6600e- 4.0000e- 1.7000e- • i 6.3192 6.3192 2.2000e- i 6.3246 i i i i i i i i •: 003 1 003 1 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 1 003 1 005 003 : ' 1 004 1 i ' 1 1 1 Unmitigated •. 1.7000e- • 4.0600e- • 0.0169 • 6.0000e- . 6.1900e- . 5.0000e- • 6.2400e- , 1.6600e- • 4.0000e- . 1.7000e- • . 6.3192 • 6.3192 • 2.2000e- • 6.3246 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 MI 4.2 Trip Summary Information Ave age Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park ; 0.11 : 1.37 1.00 • 896 • 896 Total I 0.11 I 1.37 1.00 I 896 I 896 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W I H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary I Diverted I i Pass -by i City Park • 9.50 7.30 7.30 •• 33.00 48.00 19.00 • 28 6 . 66 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH I City Park : 0.465886: 0.050507: 0.268464: 0.141721: 0.017188: 0.007113: 0.024629: 0.006618: 0.004259: 0.003067: 0.009235: 0.000505: 0.000808 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Enerav Use: N CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Attachment 8 Page 10 of 13 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaturalGas •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 � 0.0000 0.0000 : 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mitigated : 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -. 1 NaturalGas • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 Unmitigated 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park i 0 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I I . . 1 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 13 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park 1 0 •i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 1.4000e- 1 0.0000 1 1.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- i 1.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 i 1.0000e - •i iii 004 005 1 1 1 1 1 i 005 ,i i i i i i i 1 i : i 005 i 005 i 1 .1 1- } } 1 } 4 4 } r • i. } 4 4 Unmitigated •g 1.4000e- g 0.0000 • 1.0000e- • 0.0000 g • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • g 0.0000 • 0.0000 • g 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- g 0.0000 • • 1.0000e- 004 005 005 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 13 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Coating :1 Consumer • 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Products 7, 004 Landscaping .1 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 • 005 005 i 005 Total 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 005 005 005 005 Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory - lb/day lb/day Architectural 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer • 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Products 004 Landscaping •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 • • 005 005 005 Total 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 005 005 005 005 7.0 Water Detail CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 13 of 13 Date: 1/30/2019 2:05 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Summer 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year l Horse Power l Load Factor l Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type L Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment 1 Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Attachment 8 Page 1 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual XS Small Pond Management San Mateo County, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric 1 Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area I Population City Park • • 0.06 Acre 0.06 2,613.60 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Climate Zone 5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 0.029 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70 Operational Year 2024 N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Worst case is 6 weeks/30 days Off -road Equipment - CaIEEMod assumes 15 equipment hours total for a site this size. Adjusted hours for client -provided fleet accordingly Grading - Assumes total size of pond CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Table Name 1 Column Name Default Value 1 New Value tblConstructionPhase tblConstructionPhase tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment • • • • • • • • NumDays i PhaseEndDate I t LoadFactor i LoadFactor LoadFactor OffRoadEquipmentType ir OffRoadEquipmentType OffRoadEquipmentType OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount UsageHours UsageHours 4 2.00 8/16/2023 0.38 0.38 0.38 1.00 1.00 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 15.00 9/4/2023 0.38 0.38 0.38 Excavators Off -Highway Trucks Rollers 0.00 2.50 6.00 2.50 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 18 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2023 •' 4.5600e- 0.0398 0.0392 9.0000e- 0.0150 1.8000e- 0.0168 7.9900e- 1.6600e- 9.6500e- • 0.0000 i 8.0372 8.0372 2.4000e- 0.0000 8.0971 003 005 003 003 003 003 ; • • 003 Maximum 4.5600e- 0.0398 0.0392 9.0000e- 0.0150 1.8000e- 0.0168 7.9900e- 1.6600e- 9.6500e- 0.0000 8.0372 8.0372 2.4000e- 0.0000 8.0971 11 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year - tons/yr MT/yr 2023 4.5600e- 0.0398 0.0392 9.0000e- 0.0150 1.8000e- 0.0168 7.9900e- 1.6600e- 9.6500e- • 0.0000 i 8.0372 8.0372 2.4000e- 0.0000 8.0971 003 005 003 003 003 003 ; • 003 i Maximum 4.5600e- 0.0398 0.0392 9.0000e- 0.0150 1.8000e- 0.0168 7.9900e- 1.6600e- 9.6500e- 0.0000 8.0372 8.0372 2.4000e- 0.0000 8.0971 II 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 18 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 8-15-2023 9-30-2023 0.0444 0.0444 Highest 0.0444 0.0444 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ;9 005 J .1 J J J J J J ; J J .1 T Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 f J J J J J J J J J J J T Mobile • 9.0000e- 2.4000e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 9.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- • 0.0000 i 0.3058 0.3058 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.3061 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 : 005 f J J J J J J J J ; J J .1 T Waste • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 2.0300e- i 0.0000 2.0300e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- 003 003 004 003 f J J J J J J J J le J J J T Water • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0728 0.0728 0.0000 0.0000 0.0731 Total 1.1000e- 2.4000e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 9.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- 2.0300e- 0.3786 0.3807 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.3842 004 004 004 004 004 005 005 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 18 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i •1 ,l Energy •i q •I f Mobile • Waste •i Water •i 2.0000e- 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 005 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 V 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 1 ; 1 1 • I .1 .1 J .1 .1 .1 .1 V 9.0000e- 2.4000e- 19.4000e- 0.0000 1 3.3000e- 0.0000 3.3000e- 9.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- • 0.0000 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 J J J J J J J J . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 2.0300e- 003 J J J J J J J J V 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a 0.0000 ■ • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 .1 .1 .1 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 .1 .1 J i 0.3058 0.3058 1.0000e- 1 0.0000 0.3061 005 J J J i 0.0000 2.0300e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- 003 004 i 003 J J J i 0.0728 0.0728 0.0000 0.0000 0.0731 Total 1.1000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 2.0300e- 003 0.3786 0.3807 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.3842 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fug'tive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fug'tive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 :Grading :Grading :8/15/2023 :9/4/2023 5' 15: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Attachment 8 Page 6 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading :Excavators ; 1 :Off -Highway Trucks ; 1 :Rollers :Concrete/Industrial Saws :Rubber Tired Dozers :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2.501 158: 0.38 ° 2.501 ° 1 2.501 0; 8.001 1 F 2: ° 402: 80: 81? 0.38 0.38 0.73 2.501 247: 0.40 ° 2.50 97 : 0.37 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Grading • . 6' 15.00' 0.00' 0.00' 10.80 7.30' 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 18 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 3.2 Grading - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i 0.0141 0.0000 0.0141 7.7600e- 0.0000 7.7600e- : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 e J J J J J J J J . J J J I. Off -Road • 4.3000e- 0.0397 0.0375 8.0000e- 1.7900e- 1.7900e- 1.6500e- 1.6500e- • 0.0000 i 7.3779 7.3779 2.3900e- 0.0000 7.4375 003 005 003 003 003 003 . • 003 Total 4.3000e- 0.0397 0.0375 8.0000e- 0.0141 1.7900e- 0.0159 7.7600e- 1.6500e- 9.4100e- 0.0000 7.3779 7.3779 2.3900e- 0.0000 7.4375 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker • 2.6000e- 1.5000e- 1.7500e- 1.0000e- 8.9000e- 1.0000e- 8.9000e- 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- • 0.0000 1 0.6594 0.6594 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.6596 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 . 005 Total 2.6000e- 1.5000e- 1.7500e- 1.0000e- 8.9000e- 1.0000e- 8.9000e- 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.6594 0.6594 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.6596 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 I 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 18 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 3.2 Grading - 2023 Mitigated Construction On -Site Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i 0.0141 0.0000 0.0141 7.7600e- 0.0000 7.7600e- : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 e J J J J J J J J . J J J I. Off -Road • 4.3000e- 0.0397 0.0375 8.0000e- 1.7900e- 1.7900e- 1.6500e- 1.6500e- • 0.0000 i 7.3778 7.3778 2.3900e- 0.0000 7.4375 003 005 003 003 003 003 . • 003 Total 4.3000e- 0.0397 0.0375 8.0000e- 0.0141 1.7900e- 0.0159 7.7600e- 1.6500e- 9.4100e- 0.0000 7.3778 7.3778 2.3900e- 0.0000 7.4375 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1 i J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 le J .1 J J J .1 .1 J i J .1 .1 • Worker • 2.6000e- 1.5000e- 1.7500e- 1.0000e- 8.9000e- 1.0000e- 8.9000e- 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- • 0.0000 1 0.6594 0.6594 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.6596 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 . 005 Total 2.6000e- 1.5000e- 1.7500e- 1.0000e- 8.9000e- 1.0000e- 8.9000e- 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.6594 0.6594 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.6596 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 I 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Attachment 8 Page 9 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 9.0000e- 1 2.4000e- i 9.4000e- 1 0.0000 i 3.3000e- 1 0.0000 i 3.3000e- i 9.0000e- 1 0.0000 9.0000e- 0.0000 i 0.3058 i 0.3058 1 1.0000e- 1 0.0000 0.3061 •' 005 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 1 1 004 1 005 1 005 . ' 1 1 005 1 '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 Unmitigated •• 9.0000e- 2.4000e- • 9.4000e- • 0.0000 3.3000e- • 0.0000 • 3.3000e- • 9.0000e- • 0.0000 9.0000e- • 0.0000 0.3058 • 0.3058 • 1.0000e- • 0.0000 • 0.3061 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 005 4.2 Trip Summary Information Ave age Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park + 0.11 1.37 1.00 • 896 • 896 Total I 0.11 I 1.37 1.00 I 896 I 896 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by City Park • 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 • . 66 28 6 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA : 0.465886: 0.050507; 0.268464; 0.141721; 0.017188; 0.007113; 0.024629; 0.006618; 0.004259; 0.003067; 0.009235; 0.000505; 0.0008081 LDT1 I LDT2 MDV I LHD1 LHD2 I MHD HHD I OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH City Park CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.0 Energy Detail Attachment 8 Page 10 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx Co SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated •1 i i . i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I .I .1 Electricity •I i i 1 i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 Unmitigated ,� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 NaturalGas •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 Mitigated •▪ 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 NaturalGas • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . • 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • • • • v • • • • • • • • • • • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 18 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 1 0 : i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 * 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 .1 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 12 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 1 0 : i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 1 0 :i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 18 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated .i 2.0000e- i 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 I 0.0000 ` 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 '� 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 • 1 ,1. 4. } 4. 4. 4. } 4. I. . -. 4. } } 11. Unmitigated •• 2.0000e- • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 005 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating r Consumer • 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products 005 r Landscaping •i • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 18 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 Coating ;i Consumer • 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products 005 Landscaping •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 005 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category 1 MT/yr Mitigated •1 0.0728 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0731 .1 I 1 1 :I. 4 4. r Unmitigated . 0.0728 : 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0731 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 15 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 1 0 / 10.0714889: 1 VI 0.0728 0.0000 0.0000 0.0731 Total I 0.0728 0.0000 0.0000 0.0731 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Attachment 8 Page 16 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park i 0 / •i i 0.0714889', i 0.0728 0.0000 0.0000 0.0731 Total I 0.0728 0.0000 0.0000 0.0731 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •• 1 2.0300e- 1 1.2000e- 1 0.0000 1 5.0300e- ; 003 1 004 1 1 003 el. + r r Unmitigated •. 2.0300e- . 1.2000e- • 0.0000 • 5.0300e- 003 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Attachment 8 Page 17 of 18 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr City Park i 0.01 • 2.0300e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- i 003 004 i 003 i Total 2.0300e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- 003 004 003 Mitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons 1 MT/yr City Park i 0.01 • 2.0300e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- i • 003 004 i 003 i Total 2.0300e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 5.0300e- 003 004 003 9.0 Operational Offroad I Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 10.0 Stationary Equipment Page 18 of 18 XS Small Pond Management - San Mateo County, Annual Attachment 8 Date: 1/30/2019 2:04 PM Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation Attachment 8 Appendix D. Biological Resources IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 Special -Status Species with Potential to Occur on Project Site Scientific Name Common Name Status (Fed/State/Other) Habitat Microhabitat Potential to Occur in the Project Area Animals Danaus plexippus pop. 1 Monarch - California overwintering population -1-1- Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. Roosts located in wind- protected tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. The stands of Monterey pine, Monterey cypress, and eucalyptus at Toto Ranch are not known to support monarchs as they are small in size and subject to strong winds. Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander -I-ISSC Known from wet coastal forests near streams and seeps from Mendocino County south to Monterey County, and east to Napa County. Aquatic larvae found in cold, clear streams, occasionally in lakes and ponds. Adults known from wet forests under rocks and logs near streams and lakes. There is no coastal forest habitat nor cold streams in the project area, and therefore no habitat is present for this species. Emys marmorata Western pond turtle -I-ISSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg -laying. The intermittent streams at Toto Ranch are small and steep and do not have pools with woody debris or other basking sites. Also, there are no sandy soils on site. Therefore no habitat is present for this species in the project area. Eucyclogobius newberryi Tidewater goby -I-ISSC Brackish water habitats along the Califomia coast from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County to the mouth of the Smith River. Found in shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches, they need fairly still but not stagnant water and high oxygen levels. There are no lagoons within the project area, so no habitat is present for this species. Geothlypis trichas sinuosa Saltmarsh common yellowthroat -I-ISSC Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and salt water marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover down to water surface for foraging; tall grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting. There are a number of ponds with open water within the project area, although only one of these ponds contains cattails and tules. This species is known to occur in the project area. IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Special -Status Species with Potential to Occur on Project Site Scientific Name Common Name Status (Fed/State/Other) Habitat Microhabitat Potential to Occur in the Project Area Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 Steelhead - central California coast DPS -1-1- From Russian River, south to Soquel Creek and to, but not including, Pajaro River. Also San Francisco and San Pablo Bay basins. Freshwater habitat requirements include cool (12-18°C), well -oxygenated water, gravelly substrate for spawning and rearing offspring, riparian vegetation to support invertebrate prey, and fallen woody debris for habitat structure. Steelhead are known to occur in Tunitas Creek, which flows along the north boundary of Toto Ranch. The RMP excludes Tunitas Creek and the associated riparian corridor from grazing, so this species will not be impacted by its implementation. Rana draytonii California red -legged frog T/-/SSC Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to estivation habitat. Occurs in ponds, grasslands, and creeks and streams throughout Toto Ranch. Riparia riparia Bank swallow Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert. Requires vertical banks/cliffs with fine-textured/sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole. Vertical cliffs along the ocean provide habitat for this species; however, no habitat is available at Toto Ranch. Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco gartersnake E/E/FP Vicinity of freshwater marshes, ponds and slow- moving streams in San Mateo County and extreme northern Santa Cruz County. Prefers dense cover and water depths of at least one foot. Upland areas near water are also very important. Suitable habitat is present in ponds and grasslands throughout Toto Ranch. Although no surveys have detected SFGS on the property, it is likely that they occur or could move into the project area from nearby locations. Plants Arctostaphylos regismontana Kings Mountain manzanita -/-/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, north coast coniferous forest. Granitic or sandstone outcrops. 240-705 m. Not known to occur at Toto Ranch; no granitic or sandstone outcrops are present within chaparral IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 Special -Status Species with Potential to Occur on Project Site Scientific Name Common Name Status (Fed/State/Other) Habitat Microhabitat Potential to Occur in the Project Area habitats, so no habitat is present on site. Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus Coastal marsh milk -vetch -1-11 B.2 Coastal dunes, marshes and swamps, coastal scrub. Mesic sites in dunes or along streams or coastal salt marshes. 0-155 m. Not known to occur at Toto Ranch; no dune or salt marsh habitats occur on the property, so no habitat is present on site. Monolopia gracilens Woodland woollythreads -1-11 B.2 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland, broadleafed upland forest, North Coast coniferous forest. Grassy sites, in openings; sandy to rocky soils. Often seen on serpentine after burns, but may have only weak affinity to serpentine. 120-975 m. Not known to occur at Toto Ranch; no serpentine habitat occurs on the property, so no habitat is present on site. Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower -1-11 B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, coastal prairie. Mesic sites. 5-705 m. Occurs at two locations at Toto Ranch along ranch roads that retain water during the winter and spring. Notes: E: Federally Endangered T: Federally Threatened S: USFS or BLM Sensitive Species 18.1: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; Seriously threatened in California 1 B.2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; Moderately threatened in California 1 B.3: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; Not very threatened in California IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project CNDDB Map of Toto Ranch Attachment 8 LN\ California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Commercial [ds85] • • 0 • 0 EEJEIND O■ IN •l Plant (80m) Plant (specific) Plant (non-specific) Plant (circular) Animal (80m) Animal (specific) Animal (non-specific) Animal (circular) Terrestrial Comm. (80m) Terrestrial Comm. (specific) Terrestrial Comm. (non- specific) Terrestrial Comm. (circular) Aquatic Comm. (80m) Aquatic Comm. (specific) Aquatic Comm. (non- specific) Aquatic Comm. (circular) Multiple (80m) Multiple (specific) Multiple (non-specific) Multiple (circular) Sensitive EO's (Commercial only) 1:18,056 0 0.15 0.3 I r 1 0 0.25 0.5 December 6, 2018 0.6 mi I 1 km 4,1 few,'! ._tragalus pyglo3tachy 11 ,'.al r.: rIl••• Ll. h u ,1 , t ar. „ AMR —Hi.� _p Thsmmpophis1sirtalis tetrataenia 1Ii.:iiiii c'pllia_=•iltaliJ tetrctaenia Thanincuphi sirtalia tetrataenia Thamn h1- siltalls te.trat e ui. I.,_! Tharrrnnphl si talis,tetrataenia 1° Th.imnc ohi lirtaIis tetrataeni.i J_I.Thainnophi, .irtaliitetrataenia' ;Th unlr •1 111-ntalis te1r#aenia�-- TI1 111111 phis sirtalt, tetrataenia . Asttragalus. py r -lostao try us var.,• pycn istadhyus x A3tragalu3' cnostac#ryLL var. pycnosstachyus A Thamnophis sirtalis,tarataenia v A V 709 fr 44-1 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, KadasterNL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Author: Harris&Associates Printed from http://bios.dfg.ca.gov Attachment 8 CNPS List Scientific Name Common Name Status (Fed/State/CNPS) Habitat Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thorn -mint E/E/1 B.1 Chaparral, Valley and foothill grassland, serpentine soils Agrostis blasdalei Blasdale's bent grass -1-11 B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion -/-/16.2 Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; clay, volcanic, often serpentinite Amsinckia lunaris Bent -flowered fiddleneck -1-11 B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland Androsace elongata ssp. acuta California androsace -1-14.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, Pinyon and juniper woodland, Valley and foothill grassland Arabis blepharophylla Coast rockcress -1-14.3 Broadleafed upland forest, Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub; rocky Arctostaphylos andersonii Anderson's manzanita -/-/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, North Coast coniferous forest Arctostaphylos imbricata San Bruno Mountain manzanita -/-/1B.1 Chaparral, Coastal scrub Arctostaphylos montaraensis Montara manzanita -I-/1 B.2 Chaparral (maritime), Coastal scrub Arctostaphylos pacifica Pacific manzanita -lE/1 B.1 Chaparral, Coastal scrub Arctostaphylos regismontana Kings Mountain manzanita -I-11 B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, North Coast coniferous forest; granitic or sandstone Astragalus nuttallii var. nuttallii Ocean bluff milk -vetch -/-/4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus Coastal marsh milk -vetch -I-/1 B.2 Coastal dunes (mesic), Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt, streamsides) Calandrinia breweri Brewer's calandrinia -/-/4.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, sandy or loamy, disturbed sites and burns Calochortus umbellatus Oakland star -tulip -/-/4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland, often serpentinite Calochortus uniflorus Pink star -tulip -/-/4.2 Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, North Coast coniferous forest Castilleja ambigua var. ambigua Johnny -nip -/-/4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools margins Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's tarplant -1-11 B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline) Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi Pappose tarplant -1-11 B.2 Chaparral, Coastal prairie, Meadows and seeps, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), Valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic), often alkaline Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes bird's -beak -/-/16.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt) IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 CNPS List Scientific Name Common Name Status (Fed/StateICNPS) Habitat Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata San Francisco Bay spineflower -1-11 B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, sandy Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta Robust spineflower EI-I1 B.1 Chaparral (maritime), Cismontane woodland (openings), Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, sandy or gravelly Cirsium andrewsii Franciscan thistle -1-11 B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, mesic, sometimes serpentine Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale Crystal Springs fountain thistle E/E/1 B.1 Chaparral (openings), Cismontane woodland, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland, serpentine seeps Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia -/-/1 B.2 Closed -cone coniferous forest, Coastal scrub, sometimes on serpentine soils Corethrogyne Ieucophylla Branching beach aster -1-13.2 Closed -cone coniferous forest, Coastal dunes Cypripedium fasciculatum Clustered lady's -slipper -/-/4.2 Lower montane coniferous forest, North Coast coniferous forest, usually serpentinite seeps and streambanks Cypripedium montanum Mountain lady's-slipper -1-14.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, North Coast coniferous forest Dirca occidentalis Western leatherwood -I-11 B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Closed -cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, Riparian forest, Riparian woodland, mesic Elymus californicus California bottle -brush grass -/-/4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, Riparian woodland Equisetum palustre Marsh horsetail -1-13 Marshes and swamps Eriophyllum latilobum San Mateo woolly sunflower E/E/1 B.1 Cismontane woodland (often serpentinite, on roadcuts), Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest Eryngium jepsonii Jepson's coyote thistle -/-/1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools, clay Erysimum ammophilum Sand -loving wallflower -/-/1B.2 Chaparral (maritime), Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, sandy, openings Erysimum franciscanum San Francisco wallflower -/-/4.2 Chaparral, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, often serpentinite or granitic, sometimes roadsides Fissidens pauperculus Minute pocket moss -/-/1 B.2 North Coast coniferous forest (damp coastal soil) Fritillaria agrestis Stinkbells -/-/4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Pinyon and juniper woodland, Valley and foothill grassland, Clay, sometimes serpentinite Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Hillsborough chocolate lily -/-/1B.1 Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland, serpentine IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 CNPS List Scientific Name Common Name Status (Fed/State/CNPS) Habitat Fritillaria lanceolata var. tristulis Marin checker lily -1-116.1 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub Fritillaria liliacea Fragrant fritillary -1-11 B.2 Cismontane woodland, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, often serpentine Gilia millefoliata Dark -eyed gilia -1-11 B.2 Coastal dunes Grimmia torenii Toren's grimmia -1-11 B.3 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, Openings, rocky, boulder and rock walls, carbonate, volcanic Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima San Francisco gumplant -/-/3.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, sandy or serpentine Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella -/-/16.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland, Usually rocky, axonal soils. Often in partial shade Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta Congested -headed hayfield tarplant -/-/16.2 Valley and foothill grassland, sometimes roadsides Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia Short -leaved evax -/-/16.2 Coastal bluff scrub (sandy), Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie Hesperocyparis abramsiana var. butanoensis Butano Ridge cypress T/E/1 6.2 Closed -cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest, sandstone Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax T/T/1 B.1 Chaparral, Valley and foothill grassland, serpentine soils Heteranthera dubia Water star -grass -1-126.2 Marshes and swamps (alkaline, still or slow -moving water), Requires a pH of 7 or higher, usually in slightly eutrophic waters Hordeum intercedens Vernal barley -/-/3.2 Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland (saline flats and depressions), Vernal pools Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg's horkelia -1-11 B.1 Closed -cone coniferous forest, Chaparral (maritime), Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, sandy or gravelly, openings Horkelia marinensis Point Reyes horkelia -1-11 B.2 Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, sandy Hosackia gracilis Harlequin lotus -/-/4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Coastal bluff scrub, Closed -cone coniferous forest, Cismontane woodland, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, Marshes and swamps, North Coast coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland, wetlands, roadsides Hypogymnia schizidiata Island rock lichen -/-/16.3 Closed -cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, On bark and wood of hardwoods and conifers IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 CNPS List Scientific Name Common Name Status (Fed/State/CNPS) Habitat Iris longipetala Coast iris -/-/4.2 Coastal prairie, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, mesic Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha Perennial goldfields -1-116.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub Legenere limosa Legenere -/-/1B.1 Vernal pools Leptosiphon acicularis Bristly leptosiphon -/-/4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal prairie, Valley and foothill grassland Leptosiphon ambiguus Serpentine leptosiphon -1-14.2 Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, usually serpentine Leptosiphon croceus Coast yellow leptosiphon -/-/16.1 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie Leptosiphon grandiflorus Large -flowered leptosiphon -/-/4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Closed -cone coniferous forest, Cismontane woodland, Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, usually sandy Leptosiphon rosaceus Rose leptosiphon -1-11 B.1 Coastal bluff scrub Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs lessingia -I-11 B.2 Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, serpentinite, often roadsides Lessingia germanorum San Francisco lessingia E/E/1 B.1 Coastal scrub (remnant dunes) Lessingia hololeuca Woolly-headed lessingia -1-13 Broadleafed upland forest, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland, clay, serpentine Lilium maritimum Coast lily -/-/1B.1 Broadleafed upland forest, Closed -cone coniferous forest, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps (freshwater), North Coast coniferous forest, sometimes roadside Limnanthes douglasii ssp. ornduffii Ornduff's meadowfoam -1-11 B.1 Meadows and seeps, Agricultural fields Limnanthes douglasii ssp. sulphurea Point Reyes meadowfoam -/E/1 B.2 Coastal prairie, Meadows and seeps (mesic), Marshes and swamps (freshwater), Vernal pools Lupinus arboreus var. eximius San Mateo tree lupine -/-/3.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub Malacothamnus aboriginum Indian Valley bush -mallow -1-11 B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Rocky, granitic, often in burned areas Malacothamnus arcuatus Arcuate bush -mallow -1-11 B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland Malacothamnus davidsonii Davidson's bush -mallow -I-11 B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush -mallow -/-/16.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 CNPS List Scientific Name Common Name Status (Fed/State/CNPS) Habitat Microseris paludosa Marsh microseris -1-11 B.2 Closed -cone coniferous forest, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland Mielichhoferia elongata Elongate copper moss -/-/4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Subalpine coniferous forest, Metamorphic rock, usually acidic, usually vernally mesic, often roadsides, sometimes carbonate Monolopia gracilens Woodland woolythreads -1-11 B.2 Broadleafed upland forest (openings), Chaparral (openings), Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest (openings), Valley and foothill grassland, serpentine Orthotrichum kellmanii Kellman's bristle moss -1-11 B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, sandstone, carbonate Pedicularis dudleyi Dudley's lousewort -1-11 B.2 Chaparral (maritime), Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland Pentachaeta bellidiflora White -rayed pentachaeta E/E/1 B.1 Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland (often serpentinite) Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri Gairdner's yampah -/-/4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, Coastal prairie, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools, vernally mesic Pinus radiata Monterey pine -/-/1B.1 Closed -cone coniferous forest, Cismontane woodland Piperia candida White -flowered rein orchid -/-/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Lower montane coniferous forest, North Coast coniferous forest, sometimes serpentine Piperia michaelii Michael's rein orchid -/-/4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Closed -cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower -1-11 B.2 Chaparral, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, mesic Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. hickmanii Hickman's popcornflower -/-14.2 Closed -cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps, Vernal pools Plagiobothrys diffusus San Francisco popcornflower -/E/1 B.1 Coastal prairie, Valley and foothill grassland Polemonium carneum Oregon polemonium -I-/2B.2 Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest Potentilla hickmanii Hickman's cinquefoil E/E/1 B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, Closed -cone coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps (vernally mesic), Marshes and swamps (freshwater) Ranunculus lobbii Lobb's aquatic buttercup -/-/4.2 Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools, mesic IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 Attachment 8 CNPS List Scientific Name Common Name Status (Fed/State/CNPS) Habitat Sanicula hoffmannii Hoffmann's sanicle -/-/4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, Coastal bluff scrub, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, often serpentinite or clay Senecio aphanactis Chaparral ragwort -/-/2B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, sometimes alkaline Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri Scouler's catchfly -/-/2B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Valley and foothill grassland Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion -1-11 B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Chaparral, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, sandy Stebbinsoseris decipiens Santa Cruz microseris -/-/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Closed -cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, open areas, sometimes serpentinite Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina Slender -leaved pondweed -I-12B.2 Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow freshwater) Toxicoscordion fontanum Marsh zigadenus -/-/4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Marshes and swamps, vernally mesic, often serpentinite Trifolium amoenum Two -fork clover E/-/1 B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, Valley and foothill grassland (sometimes serpentinite) Trifolium buckwestiorum Santa Cruz clover -/-/16.1 Broadleafed upland forest, Cismontane woodland, Coastal prairie, gravelly, margins Trifolium hydrophilum Saline clover -1-11 B.2 Marshes and swamps, Valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), Vernal pools Triphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl's -clover -1-11 B.2 Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, usually serpentine Triquetrella californica Coastal triquetrella -1-11 B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub Usnea longissima Methuselah's beard lichen -/-/4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, North Coast coniferous forest, On tree branches; usually on old growth hardwoods and conifers Notes: 1B.1: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; Seriously threatened in California 1 B.2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; Moderately threatened in California 1 B.3: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; Not very threatened in California 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3: Review List: Plants about which more information is needed 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution IS/MND Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project October 2019 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location IPaC Attachment 8 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 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 affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site -specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. joirak Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined 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 San Mateo County, California Local office Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office .. (916) 414-6600 (916) 414-6713 Federal Building 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 1/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Attachment 8 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 influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow 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 effects to species, additional site -specific and project -specific 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 office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. _ )(AL 3. Log in (if directed to do so).%, 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species1 and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries 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. 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location: Mammals NAME STATUS https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 2/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Attachment 8 Southern Sea Otter Enhydra lutris nereis Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Marine mammal https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8560 Birds NAME STATUS California Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4240 California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browni No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8104 Endangered Endangered Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467 Short -tailed Albatross Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus' Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Aga, https://ecos.tws.gov/ecp/species/433 Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035 Reptiles NAME Threatened STATUS Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6199 San Francisco Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5956 Amphibians NAME Endangered STATUS o' https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 3/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Attachment 8 California Red -legged Frog Rana draytonii There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891 California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076 Fishes Threatened Threatened NAME STATUS Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321 Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius newberryi There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/57 Insects NAME c, Bay Checkerspot Butterfly Euphydryas editha bayensis There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2320 San Bruno Elfin Butterfly Callophrys mossii bayensis There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3394 Flowering Plants NAME Fountain Thistle Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7939 Marin Dwarf -flax Hesperolinon congestum No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5363 Threatened rSis:Slik ,Endangered STATUS Threatened Endangered STATUS Endangered Threatened https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 4/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Attachment 8 San Mateo Thornmint Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2038 San Mateo Woolly Sunflower Eriophyllum latilobum No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7791 White -rayed Pentachaeta Pentachaeta bellidiflora No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7782 Critical habitats Endangered Endangered Endangered olefirak Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. IN l This location overlaps the critical habitat for the following species: 13\ NAME PE 00 California Red -legged Frog Rana draytonii https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891#crithab (16 Migratory bid Anal l Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act' and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts. 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 below. 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: • Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php • Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 5/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the aVnt 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 find 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 off 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, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. 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 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 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 BREEDING SEASON (IFA J BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. "BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.) Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31 https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 6/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. 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 Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Attachment 8 Breeds elsewhere Breeds Jun 15 to Sep 10 Breeds elsewhere Black -legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla Breeds elsewher - This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but 1?)1111b warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. '� Black -vented Shearwater Puffinus opisthomelas Breeds elsewhere This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. vtth eft Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6034 Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia 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/9737 Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds elsewhere Breeds Jan 15 to Sep 30 Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 31 Breeds Jan 1 to Dec 31 https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 7/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4464 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. 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 Double -crested Cormorant phalacrocorax auritus 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. , 4111110, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Attachment 8 Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31 Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 15 Breeds May 20 to Jul 31 Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 31 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 offshore areas from certain types of developmen 31\ 00 I% or activities. 01 ,1•100# https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3478 Herring Gull Larus argentatus 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Lawrence's Goldfinch 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 Long -billed Curlew Numenius americanus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5511 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 31 Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20 Breeds elsewhere https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 8/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location 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 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.tws.gov/ecp/species/941 U 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 Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but 1?)1111b warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. '� Pink -footed Shearwater Puffinus creatopus Breeds elsewhere This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius �i 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Red -throated Loon Gavia stellata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Attachment 8 Breeds elsewhere Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20 Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15 Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 9/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 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 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Attachment 8 Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere Breeds Feb 20 to Sep 5 Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus clementae — Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 20 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA 01%* https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4243 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. 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 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9483 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Breeds elsewhere Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10 Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 10/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Willet Tringa semipalmata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Wrentit Chamaea fasciata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Probability of Presence Summary Attachment 8 Breeds elsewhere Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10 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 and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to -41114, interpret this report. Probability of Presence () \410 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 effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort 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 Effort (I) 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. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/U H HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 11/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Attachment 8 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 off 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 Allen's Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Bald Eagle Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Black Oystercatcher BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ++++ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ r4bak"ck I i i 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1+++++ ++++ I l i ! I I -I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -i- ++++ +1+1 I 1 1 it I.1 trf Black Scoter -1--I-1-1- Non-BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) " II 1111 1111 1111 1111 +11+ ••+• ++++ I I I ++++ https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 12/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Black Swift BCC Rangewide ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ I+++ ++++ +-++ ++++ Attachment 8 ++++ ++++ (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Black Turnstone T++1 ++++ ++++ +++I ++++ ++++ ++++ +I++ +++I +++I ++++ ++++ BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Black -legged Kittiwake Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Black -vented Shearwater BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Bonaparte's Gull Non -BCC Vulnerab (This is not a Bird of Conservation ConcerP (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the tagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Brown Pelican Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of +I++ ++++ +++-•- ++++ aits4305?:#5,6:04\01 +,++ ++,� • —++ —+ . + +++ — i- 4-+++ ++++ ++ • +,++ }��+ ++ +++0 ++++ ■+++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +I++ 111+ ilit 1,1, I I I _I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L I l 1. al 1111 development or activities.) https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UHHTRRXT2NGF5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 13/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Burrowing Owl BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Clark's Grebe BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) SPECIES Common Loon Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Common Murre Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development activities.) Common Yellowthroat BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) +11+ ++++ ++-a-+ ++++ ++++ ++++ +-++ ++++ it I Attachment 8 ++++ ++++ +++ ++++ +®-I-+ F ++ ++++ +I++ ++++ +++® +10+11-111-11 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1011 ++1■ ++11 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i i i I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WI il l+ ')" 1 1 1 1 i1 II ill++++++ 0+r 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 11I1 1110 +r0 11+* 1111 11++ https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UHHTRRXT2NGF5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 14/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Attachment 8 Double -crested Cormorant Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I illiAll Golden Eagle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 }-ill ++++ ++11+ I+++ Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Herring Gull Non -BCC Vulnerable I° I 1 I° 1 1 1 1 1 1 (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Lawrence's Goldfinch BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) "SNP ,01;y1h4, INT.+++ lo+++ 1111 +1+1 +++ +I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I ITIT Ti l l I I I I ! I I I ++++ ++++ ++++ Long -billed Curlew I 1++ ++++ ++++++++ ++++ ++++ +'++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +++1 BCC Rangewide T (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Marbled Godwit ++++ ++0+ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +11+ +4+4 +III++ +A+ ++++ BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UHHTRRXT2NGF5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 15/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Attachment 8 N utta l l's Woodpecker BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Oak Titmouse BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'III filo oloi milli loll 1111 1111 ilil 1111 1111 1'I 1 I nil ill onto" Au pm Parasitic Jaeger ++++ Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) SPECIES Pink -footed Shearwater BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) +++� -0--+ +++— ++++ +++I ++ -.- 1111113V JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ++++ ++, �—+I —++ ++++ +++— ++11 +++-.- Red Phalarope _+ I l l T1 1 1 1 f i l l i I t I I T I+++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UHHTRRXT2NGF5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 16/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Red -breasted Merganser Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Red -necked Phalarope Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Red -throated Loon BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Attachment 8 +0++ ++I+ ++++ ++++ ++0+ ,+++ ++++ ++111+ ++++ +■++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +++I 1I++ ++++ ++++ ++++ I1++ •+++ ++++ ++++ 111+ 1+11 1+1+ mI++ ++1i+ o++li li Ring billed Gull ++++ + Non -BCC Vulnerable (This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for r potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Rufous Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) \01 -cl>46.144 's‘-• ++ 1+11 I++I +ii1 II++ +++ ++++ ++1+ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +1++ ++++ ++++ 1+11 1111 111+ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UHHTRRXT2NGF5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 17/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Short -billed Dowitcher BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Song Sparrow BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Spotted Towhee BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Surf Scoter Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Tricolored Blackbird BCC Rangewide (CON) (This i of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) SPECIES Whimbrel BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Attachment 8 0+++ ++++ ++++ 11+1 ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 I'd 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 Illi VIII 111 1111 1111 1111 1111 II 0.0c 1111 1111 1+11 +1++ +1*1 ++++ ++++ :CII r; + ;+. 1111 � ��� --m mm mm rm rm rm rm ++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ nnil 1111 nil 1+1+ JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ++11 +1+1 ++1+ +LIT 110+ g+-1-1 1++1 11. 1+11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I j I https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UHHTRRXT2NGF5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 18/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location White -winged Scoter Non -BCC Vulnerable (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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Willet BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Wrentit BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Attachment 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I l" ++++ +I++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I ++++ +11+ +I0++ +0++ ++1+ ++++ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l i a i i i als,\3111 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 and/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 migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified 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 filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified 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 offshore 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 E -bird Explore Data Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/U H HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 19/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provide 6 ti' 8 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, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. 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 specified. 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: t‘44,10 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific 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 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts 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 affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers 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 files 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 https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 20/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds o fibp nt 8 concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified 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 effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort 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 confirm 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 confirmed. 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. ‘s:53x14 https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 21/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Attachment 8 Marine mammals Marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Some are also protected under the Endangered Species Act' and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The responsibilities for the protection, conservation, and management of marine mammals are shared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [responsible for otters, walruses, polar bears, manatees, and dugongs] and NOAA Fisheries [responsible for seals, sea lions, whales, dolphins, and porpoises]. Marine mammals under the responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list; for additional information on those species please visit the Marine Mammals page of the NOAA Fisheries website. The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits the take (to harass, hunt, capture, kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill) of marine mammals and further coordination may be necessary for project evaluation. Please contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office shown. • 1. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. 01410" r 2. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a treaty to ensure that international trade in plants and animals does not threaten their survival in the wild. _ 3. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following marine mammals under the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are potentially affected by activities in this location: NAME 1.� Southern Sea Otter Enhydra lutris nereis https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8560 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. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 22/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location Attachment 8 Fish hatcheries THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. 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: ESTUARINE AND MARINE DEEPWATER E1UBL ESTUARINE AND MARINE WETLAND M2USN E2USN FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAN,villevra. D. PEM1A PEM1 B PEM1C PEM1Ch O FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND PSSC PFOC PFOA PSSA PSSCh FRESHWATER POND PUBHh PABHh PUBFh PUBHx OTHER PUSCx RIVERINE R3UBH '4‘\30 c)f https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 23/24 12/6/2018 IPaC: Explore Location R4SBC R4SBA R5UBF R4SBCx Attachment 8 A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website 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 identified 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 classification 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 verification 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 field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications 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 tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define 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 modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/UH HTRRXT2NG F5N2H5LYU N UJ4AA/resources 24/24 Attachment 8 Attachment 8 Appendix E. Biological Resources Regulatory Setting IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 This page intentionally left blank. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 Biological Resources Regulatory Setting This appendix includes a brief description of the following applicable regulations for protecting biological resources present on Toto Ranch. • Federal Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act o Section 7, Consultation and Authorization of Take Clean Water Act Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act • State Regulations California Endangered Species Act - California Fish and Game Code o Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1600 et seq.) - California Native Plant Protection Act - Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act - Coastal Act - California Environmental Quality Act • Local Laws and Ordinances - San Mateo County General Plan - Heritage Tree Ordinance for San Mateo County Federal Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 protects fish and wildlife species that have been identified by the USFWS and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as threatened or endangered. The term "endangered" refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are in danger of extinction through all or a significant portion of their range; threatened refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are likely to become endangered in the near future. The ESA is administered by the USFWS and NOAA. In general, NOAA is responsible for protection of ESA -listed marine species and anadromous fish while other listed species are under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. The following specific provisions of the ESA apply to a proposed action (proposed action is defined by Section 7 as consisting of all proposed activities or programs of any kind that are authorized, funded, or carried out by the Federal agency) Section IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 9, Prohibition of Take. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the "take" of any fish or wildlife species listed under the ESA as endangered. "Take" of threatened species is also prohibited under Section 9 unless otherwise authorized by federal regulations. "Take," as defined by the ESA, means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Harm is defined as "any act that kills or injures the species, including significant habitat modification." In addition, Section 9 prohibits removing, digging up, cutting, and maliciously damaging or destroying federally listed plants that may occur at sites under federal jurisdiction. Section 7, Consultation and Authorization of Take Section 7 of the ESA provides a means for authorizing take of threatened and endangered species by federal agencies. It applies to actions that are conducted, permitted, or funded by a federal agency. Under Section 7, the federal agency conducting, funding, or permitting an action (the lead agency) must consult with USFWS or NOAA, as appropriate, to ensure that the proposed action will not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. If a proposed project "may affect" a listed species or designated critical habitat, the lead agency is required to prepare a biological assessment (BA) evaluating the nature and severity of the expected effect. In response, USFWS or NOAA issues a biological opinion (BO) with a determination of one of the following findings. The proposed action may either: • jeopardize the continued existence of one or more listed species (jeopardy finding); • result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (adverse modification finding); • not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species (no jeopardy finding); or • not result in adverse modification of critical habitat (no adverse modification finding). The BO issued by USFWS or NOAA may stipulate discretionary "reasonable and prudent" conservation measures. If a proposed action under review would not jeopardize a listed species, USFWS or NOAA would issue an incidental take statement to authorize the proposed activity. The USFWS and NOAA Fisheries would complete an internal project review process pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The outcome of the Section 7 process will be a Biological Opinion, as discussed above. Clean Water Act The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation's surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. As such, it empowers the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set national water quality standards and effluent limitations and establishes permit review mechanisms to enforce them, operating on IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 the principle that all discharges into the nation's waters are unlawful unless specifically authorized by a permit. Most of the CWA's provisions are at least indirectly relevant to the management and protection of biological resources because of the link between water quality and ecosystem health. The portions of the CWA that are most directly relevant to biological resources management are contained in CWA Section 404, which regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into "waters of the United States," including all areas within the ordinary high water mark of a stream, including non -perennial streams with a defined bed and bank and any stream channel that conveys natural runoff, even if it has been realigned; and seasonal and perennial wetlands, such as those present at the Sears Point project site. Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as areas "inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (33 CFR 328.3, 40 CFR 230.3). CWA Section 404 requires project proponents to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including oceans, bays, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed activity. The USACE may issue either an individual permit evaluated on a case -by -case basis, or a general permit evaluated at a program level for a series of related activities. General permits are preauthorized and are issued to cover multiple instances of similar activities expected to cause only minimal adverse environmental effects. Nationwide Permits (NWPs) are a type of general permit issued to cover particular fill activities. Each NWP specifies particular conditions that must be met in order for the NWP to apply to a particular project. Waters of the United States both at the project site and within its vicinity are under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Compliance with CWA Section 404 requires compliance with several other environmental laws and regulations, including NEPA, the ESA, the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition, the USACE cannot issue or verify any permit until a water quality certification, or waiver of certification, has been issued (by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board) pursuant to CWA Section 401. Section 404 permits may be issued only for the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. That is, authorization of a proposed discharge is prohibited if there is a practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts and lacks other significant adverse consequences. Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson -Stevens Act establishes a management system for national marine and estuary fishery resources. This legislation requires all federal agencies to consult with the National IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding all actions or proposed actions permitted, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). Essential fish habitat is defined as waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity. The legislation states that migratory routes to and from anadromous fish spawning grounds also should be considered EFH. Within the context of the Magnuson -Stevens Act, the phrase "adversely affect" refers to the creation of any impact that reduces the quality or quantity of EFH. Federal activities that occur outside an EFH but that may nonetheless have an impact on EFH waters and substrate also must be considered in the consultation process. Under the Magnuson -Stevens Act, effects on habitat managed under the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan must be considered as well. The Magnuson -Stevens Act states that consultation regarding EFH should be consolidated, where appropriate, with the interagency consultation, coordination, and environmental review procedures required by other federal statutes, such as NEPA, CWA, and ESA. Essential fish habitat consultation requirements can be satisfied through concurrent environmental compliance requirements if the lead agency provides NOAA Fisheries with timely notification of actions that may adversely affect EFH and if the notification meets the requirements for EFH assessments. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703) enacts the provisions of treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union and authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory birds. It establishes seasons and bag limits for hunted species and protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs (16 USC 703, 50 CFR 21, 50 CFR 10). Most actions that result in taking or in permanent or temporary possession of a protected species constitute violations of the MBTA. Examples of permitted actions that do not violate the MBTA include: the possession of a hunting license to pursue specific game birds; legitimate research activities; display in zoological gardens; bird -banding; and other similar activities (Faanes et al. 1992). USFWS is responsible for overseeing compliance with the MBTA. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles including their parts, nests or eggs. The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb". For purposes of the "Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and Conservation Measures" the term "disturb" means to "agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior". In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impact that result from human -induced alteration initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagles return such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior and causes injury, death or nest abandonment (USFWS 2011c). State Regulations California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Section 2050 et seq.), which is administered by CDFG, protects wildlife and plants listed as threatened and endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission. CESA prohibits all persons from taking species that are state -listed as threatened or endangered except under certain circumstances. CESA defines "take" as any action or attempt to "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill" a listed species. Section 2081 of CESA provides a means by which agencies or individuals may obtain authorization for incidental take of state -listed species, except for certain species designated as "fully protected" under the California Fish and Game Code (see below). Under Section 2081, a take must be incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. In general, the requirements include identification of impacts on listed species; development of mitigation measures that minimize and fully mitigate impacts; development of a monitoring plan; and assurance of funding to implement mitigation and monitoring. California Fish and Game Code The California Fish and Game Code (Code) provides a variety of species protection from unauthorized take. The Code defines "take" as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." Certain species are considered fully protected, meaning that the Code explicitly prohibits all take of individuals of these species, except for take required for scientific research, which may be authorized by CDFG. Section 5050 of the Code lists fully protected amphibians and reptiles, Section 5515 lists fully protected fishes, Section 3511 lists fully protected birds, and Section 4700 lists fully protected mammals. The Code provides less stringent protection for other species, prohibiting most take, but permitting CDFG to issue regulations authorizing take under certain circumstances. Eggs and nests of all birds are protected under Section 3503, nesting birds (including raptors and passerines) are protected under Sections 3513 and 3503.5, birds of prey are protected under Section 3503.5, migratory non -game birds are protected under Section 3800, and other specified birds are protected under Section 3505. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreements (Section 1600 et seq.) Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code regulates activities that interfere with the natural flow of, or substantially alter the channel, bed, or bank of a lake, river, or stream. Lake and streambed alteration activities are covered under Section 1600. Requirements to protect the integrity of biological resources and water quality are often conditions of streambed alteration agreements administered under Section 1600 et seq. California Native Plant Protection Act The California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) of 1977 prohibits importation of rare and endangered plants into California; unauthorized take of rare and endangered plants; and sale of rare and endangered plants (the "threatened " category replaced "rare" when the CESA was enacted in 1984). CESA defers to the CNPPA, which ensures that state -listed plant species are protected when state agencies are involved in projects subject to CEQA. Removal of plants for performance of a public service by a public agency or a publicly- or privately -owned public utility is exempt from CNPPA. Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter -Cologne Act established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and divided the state into nine regional basins, each of is under the jurisdiction of Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The Act also requires the SWRCB or the RWQCB to adopt water quality control plans, or Basin Plans, for the protection of water quality. A Basin Plan must identify the beneficial uses of water to be protected, establish water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of the beneficial uses, and establish a program of implementation for achieving the water quality objectives. Furthermore, the Basin Plans also provide a technical basis for determining waste discharge requirements, justification for enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. The most recent Basin Plan for the San Francisco Bay region was adopted by the RWQCB in 2004. The SWRCB and the RWQCB have taken the position that the Porter -Cologne Act and basin plans developed pursuant to the Act provide independent authority to regulate discharge of fill material to wetlands outside the jurisdiction of the USACE. This applies specifically to isolated wetlands considered non jurisdictional based on the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (9121 S.CT. 675, 2001) decision, which limited the USACE's jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. Coastal Act Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and California Coastal Act of 1976, the California Coastal Commission is entrusted to review proposed development in the Coastal Zone with the goal of protecting and enhancing the coastal environment while allowing utilization and IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 public access for coastal zone -dependent uses. The Coastal Act is administered either state-wide, when a project falls within the Coastal Zone, or locally through Local Coastal Programs, which provide guidance via local agencies. Toto Ranch falls within the Coastal Zone, but not within the San Mateo Local Coastal Program. Under the Coastal Act, Environmental Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) and wetlands are given special protection. Under the Coastal Act, ESHA is defined as "any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats 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." ESHA "shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas." "Development in areas adjacent to [ESHA] ... shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat ... areas." California Environmental Quality Act Based on provisions of Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, plants and animals with the following protected status may be addressed in CEQA documents on proposed development projects: federally -listed Endangered or Threatened species under the FESA, federal Proposed and Candidate species, and species listed by the state of California as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare under the CESA or California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA). In addition, under Section 15380(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, a species not included on any list recognized by the state "shall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet the criteria" for listing. The CDFW, USFWS, and U.S. Forest Service all maintain independent lists of species with designated conservation status that meet the CEQA Guidelines criterion for consideration. Based on provisions of Section 15380(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies, in making a determination of impact significance, typically treat non -listed plant and animal species as equivalent to listed species if the non -listed species satisfy the minimum biological criteria for listing. In assigning "impact significance" to populations of non -listed species, analysts generally consider factors such as population -level effects, proportion of the taxon's range affected by a project, regional effects, and impacts to habitat features. Local Laws and Ordinances San Mateo County General Plan The San Mateo County General Plan provides information on existing natural and man-made conditions of the physical environment that must be analyzed in light of resource management and community development. The plan identifies key plans, regulations and agencies that affect planning decisions. The San Mateo County General Plan provides definitions and policies for the IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Attachment 8 protection of natural resources, including species and habitats in the Vegetative, Water, Fish, and Wildlife Resources Policies. Heritage Tree Ordinance for San Mateo County San Mateo County has designated trees of 12" in diameter or larger (measured at breast height) in any area of the unincorporated County as Significant Trees to prevent their indiscriminate removal. The County requires a permit for the removal of these trees and may require an arborist report to substantiate tree health or safety concerns. For most cases of tree removal, tree replacement will be required. Also, according to their size as stipulated in the Heritage Tree regulations, some trees have been designated Heritage Trees, including some oaks, redwoods, and other trees. The County requires a permit for the trimming or removal of these trees and may require an arborist report with the permit application for trees that may need to be trimmed or removed for tree health and safety reasons. In most cases of tree removal, tree replacement will be required. IS/MND October 2019 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project ATTACHMENT 9 RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCLUDING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE TOTO RANCH RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE TUNITAS CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE I. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ("MROSD") is a lead agency, as provided for under section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.). II. The Board of Directors of MROSD ("Board") has reviewed the proposed Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan ("Project") for Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. M. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (collectively referred to as the MND), attached to the Board Report dated February 26, 2020, and incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; was prepared for the Project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code. Regulations sections 15000 et seq.). IV. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a MND was distributed to the California Office of Planning and Research's State Clearinghouse, adjacent property owners, nearby residents, and contacts on the District's interested parties lists for grazing and Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve, as well as posted at the County of San Mateo Clerk Recorder's Office and on the MROSD website, notifying all interested parties of the availability and 30 -day public review period of the MND from October 11, 2019 to November 12, 2019. Copies of the full MND were available on the MROSD website, at the MROSD Administrative Office at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022, at the County of San Mateo's Clerk Recorder's Office at 555 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, and printed copies were available upon request. V. The MND identified potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment, including specific impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Resources, and found that mitigation for the proposed Project would avoid or mitigate these impacts to below a level of significance by adoption and implementation of the proposed mitigation measures as part of the Project and through implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP). VI. A Mitigation Monitoring Program was prepared to ensure compliance with the MND's mitigation measures and attached to the Board Report dated February 26, 2020, and incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein. VII. On February 26, 2020, the Board conducted a duly noticed public meeting whereby all oral and written comments received during the public review period and a staff Resolutions- Toto Ranch AMP — Adopt MND 1 recommendation for approval of the MND were presented to the Board. The Board reviewed and considered the information in the MND, administrative record, and Board Reports for completeness and compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record presented, the Board of Directors finds that: 1. The MND and NOI were prepared and publicly noticed in accordance with all legal requirements pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code. Regulations sections 15000 et seq.). 2. All interested parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the MND prior to this action by the Board, and all comments raised during the public comment period and at the public meeting on the MND were responded to adequately. 3. Prior to approving the Project, the Board has considered the MND, along with all comments received during the public review process. 4. The MND identified all potentially significant impacts to the environment and finds potentially significant impacts will be mitigated to less than significant or avoided by adoption of the mitigation measures as described in the MND as part of the Project and through implementation of the MMP. 5. The Board finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, including the MND and all comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment in that, although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect since Mitigation Measures have been made a part of the Project to avoid such effects. 6. The Board determines that the MND reflects its independent judgment and analysis and adopts the MND. 7. The Board adopts the MMP and finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions on the Project and shall be implemented as part of the Project. 8. The location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the offices of the General Manager of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on , 2020, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote: Resolutions- Toto Ranch RMP — Adopt MND 2 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary President Board of Directors Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: General Counsel I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held and called on the above day. District Clerk Resolutions- Toto Ranch RMP — Adopt MND 3 Attachment 10 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TOTO RANCH/TUNITAS CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT MIDPENINSULA R[ 1 Q N A L OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los Altos, California December 2019 Attachment 10 Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Management Plan Project Introduction The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines, prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project. In accordance with CEQA, the lead agency must also adopt a program for reporting or monitoring mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21081.6[a]; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 [d], 15097). This document represents the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project, and includes all recommendations and measures required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. Table 1 includes a summary of recommendations and measures that have been identified for the project, and identifies the responsible professionals for implementing the recommendations or measures, and the agency responsible for monitoring the recommendations or measures. Following Table 1, the full description of construction and management BMPs, and mitigation measures, that were required for the Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project, are provided. Tables 1A, 1B, 2, and 8, and Appendix B from the IS/MND follow, as they are referenced in Table 1, and include additional information about the recommendations and measures that have been identified in existing Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District permits and guidance documents that are applicable to the implementation of specific projects identified through the RMP and pond management activities within Toto Ranch. Contact Information: Aaron Peth, (650) 691-1200 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 1 Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan — Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Recommendations/Management & Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Notes Recommendations Recommendation: Vegetation Prescriptions Recommendation: Grazing Season Recommendation: Water Supply Recommendation: Stock Ponds Recommendation: Supplemental Feed Recommendation: Fencing and Corrals Recommendation: Herd Health Recommendation: Ranch Roads Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/ rangeland specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/ rangeland specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/ rangeland specialist/ h drolo•ist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/ rangeland specialist/ h drolo•ist Grazing tenant 1 See Table lA Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Grazing tenant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Grazing tenant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/ maintenance staff Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Management Plan 2 December 2019 Project Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan — Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Recommendations/Management & Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Notes Recommendation: Drought Preparedness Recommendation: Pathogen Reduction and Risk Management Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified rangeland specialist/hydrology, grazing tenant Grazing tenant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Recommendation: California Red -Legged Frog Management Recommendation: San Francisco Garter Snake Management Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Recommendation: Choris' Popcorn Flower Midpeninsula Regional Midpeninsula Regional Open Management g Open Space District qualified biologist Space District Recommendation: Invasive Plant Control Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/ rangeland management specialist Grazing tenant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Recommendation: Additional Livestock Production Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Recommendation: Miscellaneous (pulled from other sections of the RMP) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District staff and grazing tenant Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Management Plan Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3 December 2019 Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan — Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Monitoring Notes Recommendations/Management & Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measures Responsibility Responsibility Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measures2 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Residual Dry Matter (RDM) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/rangeland specialist and grazing tenant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Livestock Infrastructure (water systems, gates, fencing) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified rangeland specialist/maintenance crew and grazing tenant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Non -Native Invasive Vegetation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/rangeland specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District p Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Stock Ponds Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/rangeland specialist/hydrologist and grazing tenant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Native Vegetation/Habitats Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/rangeland specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Agricultural Practices (excluding grazing) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/hydrologist/range land specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2 See Table 1B Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Management Plan Project 4 December 2019 Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan — Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Monitoring Notes Recommendations/Management & Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/rangeland specialist Monitoring Responsibility Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Restoration Projects Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Climate Change Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/rangeland specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Grazing Management Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/rangeland specialist and grazing tenant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Soil Erosion Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/rangeland specialist and grazing tenant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Photo Points Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/rangeland specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measure: Wildlife Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District P Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Management Plan Project 5 December 2019 Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan — Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Recommendations/Management & Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measures Responsibility Responsibility Monitoring Notes Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs)3 Avoidance and Minimization Measure: Ponds and Midpeninsula Regional Midpeninsula Regional Open Wetlands 1A. Pond Monitoring and Annual Work Plan 1B. Pond Berm Repairs/Maintenance Open Space District bologi d biologist/hydrologist/ maintenance crew Space District 1C. Pond Outlet Repairs/Maintenance 1D. Pond Basins Repairs/Maintenance 1E. Pond Trash Cleanup 1 F. Preconstruction Surveys Prior to Pond Maintenance, Enhancement, and Creation 1G. Implementation of Pond Maintenance, Enhancement, and Creation Activities 3 See Tables 2 and 8, and Appendix B Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Management Plan Project 6 December 2019 Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Recommendations/Management & Mitigation Measures Plan — Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Monitoring Notes Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Avoidance and Minimization Measure: Creeks and Midpeninsula Regional Midpeninsula Regional Open Streams Open Space District Space District 2A. Preconstruction Surveys Prior to Maintenance, Enhancement, and Construction In and Near Creeks and Streams qualifiedioiog t/hydrologist/ maintenance crew 2B. Culvert Replacement 2C. Culvert Repair/Maintenance 2D. Minor Culvert Relocation Where the Road or Trail Is Not Also Being Relocated 2E. Removal of Existing Culverts or Replacement with Rolling Dips Or Fords 2F. New Culvert Installation (Non -Stream Crossing Culverts) 2G. Ford and Swale Replacement, Repair or Maintenance (Includes Drain Lenses and Causeways) 2H. Bank Stabilization, Replacement, Repair, and Maintenance 21. Implementation of Maintenance and Enhancement Activities Near Creeks and Streams 2J. Integrated Pest Management Associated with the Use of Chemicals In and Near Creeks and Streams Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Management Plan Project 7 December 2019 Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan — Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Monitoring Notes Recommendations/Management & Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Avoidance and Minimization Measure: Trail Construction and Maintenance (Project -Related) 3A. Routine Trail Maintenance 3B. Vegetation Removal for Trail Maintenance 3C. Trail Construction and Siting 3D. Trail Drainage and Erosion Control 3E. Minor Trail Relocation 3F. Trail Closures and Restricting Use 3G. Permanent Trail Closure 3H. Exclusion Fencing for Federally -Listed Species 31. Vegetation Removal to Maintain Trails, Roads, or Staging Areas Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified trail construction specialist/maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Avoidance and Minimization Measure: Special- Status Plants 4A. Preconstruction Special -Status Plant Survey 4B. Choris' Popcorn Flower: Rare Plant Exclusion Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/botanist/wetland specialist and maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Avoidance and Minimization Measure: Salmonids 5A. General Anadromous Fish Avoidance and Minimization Measures 5B. Enhance Habitat for Anadromous Fish 5C. Monitor Sensitive Fish Species 5D. Integrated Pest Management In and Near Fish Habitat Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified fisheries biologist and maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Management Plan Project 8 December 2019 Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan — Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Recommendations/Management & Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Notes Mitigation Measures Responsibility Responsibility Avoidance and Minimization Measure: California Midpeninsula Regional Midpeninsula Regional Open Red -Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake Compliance with Federal Permits for CRLF and SFGS Open Space District qualif6A. maintenanced c biologist and crew Space District 6B. Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Ponds and Creeks and Streams 6C. Yearly Work Proposals for CRLF and SFGS Enhancement 6D. Biological Monitors 6E. Preconstruction Meeting and Construction Training 6F. Stop Work Authority for CRLF and SFGS 6G. CRLF and SFGS Preconstruction Surveys 6H. Egg Mass Avoidance 61. Seasonal Work Period in Ponds 6J. Agency Notification of Enhancement Activities at CRLF and/or SFGS Sensitive Sites 6K. Vegetation Removal by Mechanized Equipment at CRF and/or SFGS Sensitive Sites 6L. Vegetation Removal at Ponds 6M. CRLF and SFGS Exclusion for Sediment Removal with Large Equipment 6N. No Stockpiling of Vegetation 60. Vehicle Restrictions 6P. No Stockpiling of Soil 6Q. Cease Activities for CRLF/SFGS in the Work Area 6R. CRFL Emergency Salvage and Recovery 6S. CRLF and SFGS Reporting Requirements 6T. Integrated Pest Management in CRLF and SFGS Habitat Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Management Plan Project 9 December 2019 Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Recommendations/Management & g Mitigation Measures Plan — Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Monitoring Notes Implementation Responsibility Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District biologist and qualif7A. c maintenanced crew Monitoring Responsibility Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Avoidance and Minimization Measure: San Francisco Dusky -Footed Woodrat SFDW Protection Preconstruction Survey Avoidance and Minimization Measure: Special Status Bat Species 8A. Preconstruction Surveys 8B. Tree Removal Associated with Bats 8C. Non -Tree Roost Exclusion Associated with Bats Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist and maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Avoidance and Minimization Measure: Raptors and Birds 9A. Nesting Bird Surveys 9B. Active Nests 9C. Active Nest Buffers 9D. Nesting Habitat Removal or Modification Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist and maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Avoidance and Minimization Measure: Integrated Pest Management 10A. Invasive Animal Control 10B. Vegetation Management Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist and maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Avoidance and Minimization Measure: Grazing 11A. Use Grazing for Vegetation Management 11B. Use Grazing for Habitat Enhancement 11C. Grazing by Horses Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist/rangeland specialist and grazing tenant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Management Plan Project 10 December 2019 Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Recommendations/Management & g Mitigation Measures Plan — Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Monitoring Notes Implementation Monitoring Responsibility Responsibility Construction & Management BMPs Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)/Comply with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Construction BMPs: Implement water quality measures included in the SWPPP or San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Construction BMPs Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist and maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Reduce Fire Ignition Risk throughout Specific Project Implementation: Implement measures in relation to the use of diesel fueled vehicles/construction equipment throughout project implementation to minimize spark production risks. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist and maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Bio-1: Pond Enlargement or Creation when Ponds are Decommissioned; this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist and maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Revegetation and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitat for CRLF and SFGS; this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist and maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and/or Wetlands; this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified biologist and maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Mitigation Measure CR-1: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Cultural Resources during Construction; this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified archaeologist (or qualified contractor) and construction/maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Management Plan Project 11 December 2019 Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan — Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Rangeland Management Plan Project Recommendations/Management & Mitigation Measures Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Notes Mitigation Measure CR-2: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Human Remains during Construction; this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District qualified archaeologist (or qualified contractor) and construction/maintenance crew Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland Management Plan Project 12 December 2019 Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Construction & Management BMPs Water Quality Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan/Comply with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Construction BMPs: Implementation of the specific projects identified in the RMP may require the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) as the combined area that would be impacted through the proposed improvement projects may be over one acre in size (2009-0009-DWQ Construction General Permit4). If the area of impact for any proposed project improvements was less than one acre in size, all improvement activities undertaken at Toto Ranch would be required to implement the BMPs in accordance with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Construction BMPs program (June 2014 edition). Construction specifications would include the following BMPs to control erosion, sediment and stormwater pollution, whether implemented through a project SWPPP or through County BMPs. • All exposed and un-compacted surfaces (e.g., staging areas, soil piles and graded areas) would either be watered two times a day or covered with mulch, straw, or other dust control cover. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site would be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be collected and removed at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads would be limited to 15 miles per hour. • Idling times would be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measures (ATCM) Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). • All construction equipment would be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment would be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Hand tools would be used when possible. Fire Ignition Risk Reduce Fire Ignition Risk throughout Specific Project Implementation: The use of gas and diesel -powered vehicles within vegetated areas poses a fire risk. The following BMPs would be 4 State Water Resources Control Board, Storm Water Program, Section II.C.2 of 2009-0009-DWQ Construction General Permit as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland 13 December 2019 Management Plan Project Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan implemented to reduce the fire ignition risk throughout specific project implementation at Toto Ranch. • All equipment to be used during construction and maintenance activities must have an approved spark arrestor. • Grass and fuels around construction sites where construction vehicles are allowed to be parked would be cut or reduced. • Mechanical construction equipment that may cause an ignition would not be used when the National Weather Service issues a Red Flag Warning for the San Francisco Bay Area, unless prior approval is provided by CAL FIRE. • Hired contractors would be required to: o Provide water and/or fire extinguishers to suppress potential fires caused by the work performed. o Remind workers that smoking is prohibited at the work site and on any Midpen lands per contract conditions and Midpen Ordinances. o Maintain working ABC fire extinguishers on all vehicles in the work area. o Contact CAL FIRE for emergency response in the event of a fire. The RMP includes a suite of management recommendations and BMPs that are designed to guide the use of grazing as one of the tools available to Midpen in vegetation management and agricultural heritage preservation. The goals of the recommendations and BMPs, as stated in the RMP, are to, "ensure the sustainability of agricultural production on the Ranch while protecting rangeland health, soil stability, water quality and the control of invasive vegetation to cooperatively conserve and enhance habitat for wildlife." Detailed descriptions of these recommendations are available in the RMP and are summarized in Table 1A. Mitigation Measures Biology Mitigation BIO-1: Pond Enlargement or Creation when Ponds are Decommissioned. When existing ponds are decommissioned as part of pond management activities, a new pond shall be created or an existing pond shall be enlarged to achieve a no net loss of wetland or waters of the U.S. or state within Toto Ranch. Plans to enlarge or create ponds will be developed in consultation with USFWS, CDFW, and RWQCB. Pond creation activities such as grading with heavy equipment, digging with hand tools, diverting water, and planting native plants will likely require permits and will be conducted in compliance with any additional permit requirements. Larger mitigation ratios (2:1 replacement is a common mitigation ratio) would be required to mitigate for losses of occupied CRLF habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Revegetation and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitat for CRLF and SFGS. Revegetation and/or enhancement shall be undertaken where any sensitive habitat or special -status species habitat will be disturbed or destroyed by construction activities. Revegetation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrently with improvement project or Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland 14 December 2019 Management Plan Project Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan pond management actions. The design of an appropriate revegetation program shall fully compensate for the lost habitat, with no net loss of habitat functions and values. Riparian and wetland habitat impacts will typically be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio for high quality habitat areas and at lower ratios where lower habitat quality justifies a lower ratio. A lower ratio may also be justified if habitat mitigation is implemented and verified as successful prior to the occurrence of impacts. Mitigation shall be based on in -kind replacement of impacted habitat with habitat of equal or better biotic value. The revegetation program shall be designed by a qualified biologist or ecologist and submitted to the appropriate regulatory or trustee agency for approval. At a minimum, the revegetation program shall include a description of project impacts, mitigation calculations, the mitigation site, revegetation techniques, maintenance measures, a long-term monitoring program, and contingency measures. Native plant materials suited to the site will be utilized in all mitigation work. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Compensation for Loss of Jurisdictional Waters and/or Wetlands. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District will prepare a wetland delineation and will determine the exact acreage of waters of the U.S. and waters of the state that would be affected as a result of project implementation, and then estimate the quantity of dredge or fill material that may be discharged incidental to these activities. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District will consult with permitting with the USACE and RWQCB, including application for coverage under the Nationwide Permit or other programs as appropriate. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR-1: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Cultural Resources during Construction. If evidence of cultural resources are identified during ground disturbance associated with the proposed improvement projects or pond management activities, the construction crews will stop all work within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist assesses the previously unrecorded discovery and provides recommendations. Resources may include subsurface historic features such as: artifact -filled privies, wells, and refuse pits; artifact deposits along with concentrations of adobe, stone, or concrete walls or foundations; and concentrations of ceramic, glass, or metal materials. Native American archaeological materials may include: obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (such as projectile and dart points); midden (culturally derived darkened soil containing heat -affected rock, artifacts, animal bones, and/or shellfish remains); and/or groundstone implements (such as mortars and pestles). Mitigation Measure CR-2: Stop Work in the Event of Unexpected Occurrence of Human Remains during Construction. If human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects are discovered during soil -disturbing activities, construction crews will stop work and immediately notify the San Mateo County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist, in accordance with applicable state laws. In the event that the Coroner determines that the human remains are Native American, The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) according to the requirements in Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 5097.98. NAHC will appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). A qualified archaeologist, The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District representative, and MLD will make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment, with appropriate dignity, of any human remains and associated or Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland 15 December 2019 Management Plan Project Attachment 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[d]). The agreement will take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. The PRC allows 48 hours to reach agreement on these matters. Toto Ranch/Tunitas Creek Open Space Rangeland 16 December 2019 Management Plan Project Attachment 10 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation Vegetation Prescriptions • Leave prescribed levels of RDM • Support seed bank • Minimize soil erosion and sedimentation • Protect water quality • Reduce invasive plants • All rangeland/ pasture • All seasons • 0%-30% slopes: 2-3 in or 800-1,000 Ibs/acre (ave) • >30% slopes: 34 in or 1,00- 1,200 Ibs/acre • No significant areas of bare soil, especially on steep slopes or near riparian corridors Grazing Season • Light to moderate rotational grazing regimes (short duration) • Limited by available stock water • Rotation determined by standing forage (See Vegetation Prescriptions) • Rotation a combination of sheep and cattle may enhance forage utilization • Enhance biodiversity • Enhance aesthetics • Enhance forage production • All rangeland/ pasture • All seasons • Stable/ enhanced stock water supply (especially in summer and fall) • Standing forage (see Vegetation Prescriptions) • If water supply is limited, implement seasonal grazing regime (restrict grazing during dry months) or partial seasonal grazing regime with higher stocking rates during the winter and spring and reduced stocking during summer and fall Water Supply • Provide clean, cool water for livestock in troughs (galvanized and concrete, not plastic) • Reduce the direct livestock consumption of streams and stock ponds as water sources • Monitor water infrastructure (i.e., pipes, fixtures, troughs, solar pump, windmill, wells, storage tank) and maintain as necessary • Choris' • Install wildlife escape ramps in all troughs • Water should be prioritized for cattle and sheep (not alpacas, chickens, etc. or horses, irrigation of pastures) • Field 3 spring/water improvements (install solar -powered pump, storage tank, and water • Livestock health • Reduce erosion potential along creeks and around stock ponds • Reduce impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat and species • Minimize impacts on wildlife(from drowning in water troughs) or loss of habitat from spring development • Improve ability to rotate cattle • All troughs and water infrastructu re • Reduce the use of all stock ponds and • streams • Field 3 (spring improveme nts) • Stable/ enhanced Stock water supply (especially in summer and fall) popcorn flower habitat and population • Reduce impacts to Choris' popcorn flower from construction of infrastructure Projects; improve habitat for this species with properly timed rotational grazing Attachment 10 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation troughs) to allow properly timed grazing for Choris' popcorn flower • Adhere to District's wildlife friendly spring designs • Improve stability of water sources • Maximize water source and availability • Enhance Choris' popcorn flower population Stockponds • Routine maintenance (e.g., desilting and vegetation management) • Maintain spillway(s) and berm of stock ponds • Analyze and monitor condition of stock ponds • Decommission smaller stock ponds or seasonal catchments, when appropriate, and restore natural drainage • Enhance ponds where possible to support successful breeding (all life stages) of California red -legged frog (CRLF) and San Francisco garter snake (SFGS) populations • Maintain permits for stock pond maintenance activities • Maintain water storage capacity • Provide wildlife habitat • Provide water source for wildlife • Restore natural drainages and protect riparian habitat • Protect downstream water bodies from sedimentation • Extend life of stock ponds • Enhance habitat for aquatic species (including CRLF and SFGS) • All rangeland/ pasture stock ponds p • Quality and quantity of stock pond water supply • Condition of stock ponds • CRLF and SFGS habitat enhancement • Reduced capacity of stock ponds requires desilting • Disrepair of stock and p spillways and berms indicates need for maintenance/repairs • Damage to vegetation and banks of on stream stock ponds indicates that a pond shall be removed • Habitat assessment of ponds for CRLF and SFGS will indicate the need for pond management (fencing, grazing regime change, etc. See CRLF and SFGS Management, below) Supplemental Feed • Place water and supplemental feed/mineral stations on ridge tops and upland areas, away from water sources and riparian features • Supplemental forage shall be certified "weed free", and proof of certification, in the form of • Promotes even use/distribution of the pastures by livestock • Prevents localized impacts from livestock (e.g., soil • All rangeland/ pastures and Agricultural Lease Area • Amount of standing forage (see Vegetation Prescriptions) • Supplemental feed should be considered under drought conditions (low RDM) • Uneven grazing of pastures (areas of low Attachment 10 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation a copy of the California Department of Food and Agriculture Form 66-079 "Certificate of compaction, trampling, erosion) • Soil conditions that indicate and high RDM within the same pasture) indicates Quarantine Compliance", shall be requested • Prevents the introduction livestock are that feed/mineral stations from the vendor, and inspected by Midpen and spread of seed from not using the may need to be moved to Natural Resources Department staff prior to feeding invasive plants into pastures entire pasture encourage grazing of entire pasture • Supplemental feeding should not be used to extend the grazing season beyond the guidelines for prescribed RDM levels in the pastures. Fencing and • Maintain quality, functional infrastructure (i.e., • Increase ease of livestock • All • Condition of • Fencing in disrepair Corrals fencing, gates, corrals) handling for grazing rangeland/ fencing indicates need for repair • Install new mesh wire fencing for sheep (if rotation and controlling pastures or replacement sheep are included in the livestock access to riparian corridors and • Failure to contain operations) and other sensitive Agricultural livestock within specified • Confine sheep to predator proof pens or paddocks at night • Wire fencing on western and southern boundary should be replaced with barbed wire fencing as the existing fence fails, using Midpen specifications for livestock fencing • Install new section of barbed wire fencing southeast of the Agricultural Lease Area to split Field 3 into two separate pastures (by bisecting pond TC-06) to facilitate rotational grazing to benefit Choris' popcorn flower and CRLF (See Proposed Infrastructure for fence alignment) • Remove old fencing that does not function as a pasture barrier habitats/areas • Decrease injury to livestock while ensuring containment in proper pastures • Enhance Choris' popcorn flower habitat • Protect/enhance CRLF habitat (emergent vegetation) Lease Area pastures indicates need for fence repair or replacement . Condition of rangeland/pasture, soil, riparian areas, and stock ponds may indicate a need for additional fencing to exclude livestock or change pasture configuration to balance grazing pressure • Injuries to livestock or wildlife indicates need to change fencing materials or location Attachment 10 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation Herd Health • Implement herd health program, including vaccinations, deworming, and additional nutrients • Livestock productivity and health • Preventative care • All livestock • Herd health must be maintained at all times • Diseased or injured animals must be treated by a veterinarian or other qualified technician Ranch Roads • Maintain roads, including cleaning ditches and culverts, grades, water diversions, and water bars (especially during winter months) • Mow vegetation on road surfaces (as opposed to grading) • Road repair at two road sections (see Exhibit G in the RMP for locations) • Repair main gravel driveway between State Route 1 and the Agricultural Lease (potholes) • • Maintain access to pastures for grazing operation, maintenance, restoration, recreation, and emergency response • Minimize water flow and erosion on and adjacent to road surfaces •Decreases read of p invasive plants along road cuts and grades • All rangeland/ pastures and Agricultural Lease Area • Condition of roads and adjacent areas • Condition of culverts • Soil erosion • Conditions that indicate erosion and instability of roads indicates the need for maintenance (e.g., gullies and rills, ponded water, "washboard" road surfaces, washed out areas, potholes, slips or slides) Drought Preparedness • Maintain clean, reliable water source(s) • Maintain increased water storage capacity • Develop additional water sources if feasible (e.g., springs and wells) • If water yield increases, add water tanks for increased water storage • Lower stocking rates to below recommended carrying capacity to extend grazing season and retain forage until new forage sprouts • Grass banking (retain forage in a designated pasture by minimizing or eliminating grazing pressure in late spring and summer) • Store and feed supplemental forage (e.g., hay) that can be fed to livestock to supplement natural forage during a drought • Alleviate impacts of drought, including lack of forage, lack of water, herd health, mineral deficiencies, and lack of production • Meet vegetation prescriptions during drought • Maintain quality of pastures during drought • Maintain soil health during drought • All rangeland/ pastures and Agricultural Lease Area • Water quality • Water availabilit y •Forage quality • Forage availability • Livestock health and forage utilization • None. These management activities should be implemented as directed upon adoption of the RMP. Attachment 10 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation • Provide mineral/protein supplements to increase forage utilization, herd health, and overall productivity of livestock Pathogen • Prevent fecal contamination of creeks and • Reduce the transmission • All • Water quality • None. These Reduction and Risk other water features of pathogens between rangeland/ • Presence of management activities Management • Restrict livestock access to Tunitas Creek, Dry Creek, and perennial tributaries to both livestock, humans, and wildlife pastures and pathogens and pests should be implemented as directed upon water courses • Reduce the contamination Agricultural • Cleanliness of adoption of the RMP. • Maintain a natural vegetative buffer of no less than 30 ft from top of bank in Tunitas Creek, Dry Creek, and perennial tributaries • Restrict pasture swine rearing to flat pens in of water ways • Vegetative buffer will trap pathogens before they reach water bodies Lease Area animal pens and pastures • Location of manure piles Agricultural Lease area • Maintain a 100 ft vegetative buffer between swine and perennial streams • Location of water sources • Control runoff and leaching from stockpiled manure, confined livestock, and corral facilities • Maintain a 100 ft vegetative buffer between corrals and perennial streams • Control flies and rodents in the Agricultural Lease area according to the District's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program • Remove excess fecal waste from livestock within the confined livestock pens and corrals to reduce fly and insect presence • Provide off -stream livestock water sources (e.g., water troughs) to reduce use of streams by livestock • Implement comprehensive livestock husbandry program that includes appropriate and timely vaccinations and deworming Attachment 10 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation California Red- • Time grazing to enhance aquatic and upland • Provides cover, nutrient • All • Water quality • Decrease in water quality Legged Frog habitat for CRLF (vegetation management levels, water depth, and rangeland/ • Condition of (turbidity, nutrient levels, Management and cover and water quality) turbidity conducive to pastures stock ponds temperature) will require • Repair eroding or leaking dams and CRLF breeding and • Stock • Condition of adjustments to grazing spillways, remove excessive silt and subsistence ponds creeks regime/access by cattle vegetation, and control non-native predators .Creeks and Condition • Shallow pond depth will • Provide upland refuges and dense vegetation for predator protection • Do not eliminate burrowing rodent populations, and if rodent control is needed, do not use methods that would harm aestivating CRLF • Provide alternative water sources (water troughs) that will alleviate pressure, and therefore impacts, on existing stock ponds. Some use of stock ponds by cattle is beneficial for CRLF. • Adjust grazing intensity to enhance aquatic habitat by altering the timing and/or stocking rates of pastures with CRLF-occupied ponds. Follow recommendations in water supply above to enhance CRLF habitat by providing a sufficient inundation period for restoration streams • of emergent vegetation • Condition of riparian vegetation • Condition of upland vegetation • Presence of small mammal burrows and other upland refugia (downed logs, rocks, etc.) necessitate silt removal • Overly dense vegetation must be removed • Overly trampled pond edges will require adjustments to grazing regime/access by cattle • Over -grazed emergent and riparian vegetation will require adjustments to grazing regime/access by cattle (Dec -Sept). • When removing sediment and/or restoring ponds, provide a variation of water depths and vegetation cover for all CRLF life stages (deep center and shallow edges). • Manage emergent vegetation (cattails and other vegetation) so that density does not degrade habitat quality for CRLF. • Water troughs must be fitted with wildlife escape ramps Attachment 10 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation San Francisco • Benefits from same management of grazing • Provides adequate escape • All • Water quality • Decrease in water quality Garter Snake in upland areas and around springs and habitat during frog mating rangeland/ • Condition of (turbidity, nutrient levels, Management stock ponds as CRLF because they utilize season (Dec -Mar) and pastures stock ponds temperature) will require the same habitat during SFGS breeding and Condition adjustments to grazing • Because CRLF is the main prey, increases in season (Mar Jun and Sep- Agricultural • of creeks regime/access by cattle CRLF population also benefits the SFGS Oct) Lease Area Condition • Shallow pond depth will • Manage upland habitat for a mosaic of open • Provides reliable food • Stock • of emergent necessitate silt removal grassland, brush, and downed woody debris source (CRLF) ponds • Creeks and streams vegetation . Condition of riparian vegetation • Condition of upland vegetation • Presence of small mammal burrows and other upland refugia • Overly dense vegetation must be removed • Overly trampled pond edges will require adjustments to grazing regime/access by cattle • Over -grazed emergent and riparian vegetation will require adjustments to grazing regime/access by cattle (downed logs, rocks, etc.) • Presence of upland habitat mosaic (grassland and shrub) Choris' Popcorn • Implement a seasonal grazing program that • Enhance habitat and • All • Choris' • Adjust grazing regime Flower is compatible with and provides habitat population of Choris' rangeland/ popcorn flower (timing, amount of days Management benefit to Choris' popcorn flower popcorn flower pastures habitat and grazed) from • Improve water management to provide where population recommendations if additional water sources for cattle, protecting Choris' popcorn enhancement blooming and seed production schedules are Attachment 10 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation habitat around springs for Choris' popcorn flower flower occur different from expected dates • Reduce annual/non-native vegetation through timed livestock grazing prior to blooming period (graze in Dec -Feb in advance of Mar -Jun blooming period) • If trampling occurs, provide temporary exclusionary fencing to protect plants • Grazing can continue after seeds are released (July) • Reduce trampling from foot traffic, livestock, and road use • Prohibit placement of manure or compost within 50 feet of popcorn flower habitat areas • Implement a monitoring program for Choris' popcorn flower in accordance with Midpen guidance documents and other similar monitoring programs in progress district wide Invasive Plant • Develop integrated approach for identifying • Increase and/or maintain • All • Extent of • None. These Control and treating invasive plants that impact forage productivity rangeland/ invasive plant management activities forage production and grassland health (i.e., coyote brush, yellow star thistle, wooly distaff • Increase and/or maintain livestock productivity pastures and infestation • Establishment should be implemented as directed upon thistle, Italian thistle, bull thistle, onion grass) •• Increase and/or maintain Agricultural (new adoption of the RMP. Contain weed infestation to current extent (prevent spread of invasive plants) wildlife habitat value (forage quality) Lease Area infestations) of invasive plants • Comply with Midpen's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, Integrated Pest • Sufficient levels of RDM Management Plan (IPMP) BMPs, and the federal injunction to protect CRLF from impacts from specific chemical pesticides • Meet 2 -3 -inch RDM goals for Vegetative (see Vegetation Prescriptions, above) Prescriptions (see above) • Apply selective broadleaf herbicide in the spring to control purple star thistle and wooly Attachment 10 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation distaff thistle; follow up with manual removal of late sprouts in summer • Remove and bag wooly distaff thistle plants at least 5 in below soil surface before flowering • Mow invasive thistles with high branching patterns in late spiny or early flowering stages • Prioritize thistle removal where risk of seed spread is high (e.g., road sides, cattle trails, and loafing areas) • Use weed wrenches to remove French broom plants; prevent seed bank from forming • Feed certified weed free hay to prevent the introduction of invasive plants • Do not import outside soil or fill material • Clean vehicles and ranch equipment as needed to prevent the importation of invasive plant seeds from infested areas • Contact the local Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for funding and technical assistance with IPMP • For onion grass, remove foliage close to the ground at 3 -5 -week intervals, maintain natural forage cover, and fertilize native vegetation (to outcompete onion grass), only under the direction of Natural Resources Staff • Measures identified in the Coyote Brush Management Plan that is currently being developed my Midpen would be implemented at Toto Ranch. Attachment 10 Table 1A. RMP — Recommendations and BMPs Name of Recommendation/ BMP Description Expected Outcomes Location/ Application Parameters/ Criteria Contingency/Mitigation Additional • Additional domestic livestock (Sheep, goats, • Minimize erosion • All • Presence of • None. These Livestock chickens, pigs, Ilamas/alpacas, and horses) • Minimize risk of pathogen rangeland/ additional management activities Production shall be confined to the Agricultural Lease area • Confine small domestic livestock to pens or barns at night to minimize the risk of predation and pest infestation • Maintain rangeland/pasture quality • Maintain water quality pastures and Agricultural g Lease Area • All livestock livestock should be implemented as directed upon adoption of the RMP. p • Dairy operations are not supported by current infrastructure and may not occur • Breeding, training, raising and selling horses (Horse Operations), and boarding outside horses are not permitted on Toto Ranch. Miscellaneous • Within the Agricultural Lease Area, the • Minimize erosion • Agricultural • None • None. These (pulled from other lessee may grow vegetable crops and/or tree • Minimize water usage Lease Area management activities sections of the crops for personal use. Prior to the lessee • Entire should be implemented RMP) planting vegetable crops or imported trees, p g g p p all crops must be approved by Midpen's • Minimize spread of pathogens and pest property as directed upon p adoption of the RMP. Natural Resources Department. species • Prior to planting a vegetable garden, the lessee must be pre -approved by Midpen staff. Vegetable gardens and/or small orchards would be located within the • Maintain water quality • Maintain quality of rangeland/forage Agricultural Lease Area in areas that would not result in downstream water quality impacts, or decrease the grazing capacity of Toto Ranch. • All soils associated with potted plants and/or trees that test positive for phytopthora would be prohibited within Toto Ranch. • Cultivated farming operations would not be permitted on Toto Ranch. Attachment 10 Table 1B. RMP — Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measures Monitoring Parameter Description Timing RDM Forage and livestock distribution trends to ensure appropriate RDM remains on the ground RDM levels shall be recorded using pounds per acre, and measurements may be calculated or ocular estimates can be used. The prescribed RDM standard for moderate grazing is an average minimum of 800-1,000 pounds per acre of dry matter (two to three inches of standard RDM) on slopes of 0%-30%, and 1,000-2,000 pounds per acre of dry matter (three to four inches of standing RDM) on slopes greater than thirty percent. Leaving prescribed levels of RDM on the ground surface would provide a grassland seed crop for the following season, minimize the risk for soil erosion and sedimentation, and protect water quality. Fall at sites that exemplify the average RDM level in a pasture (not burned areas, roads, corrals, sites with low soil fertility, water sources, feeding sites, areas subject to damage by wildlife (feral pigs) and areas that have been recently cultivated. Livestock Infrastructure (water systems, gates, fencing) Condition of livestock infrastructure, including water systems, gates and fencing, to ensure conformity with the terms of the easement and to improve rangeland and grazing management practices. Infrastructure — Conditions of infrastructure relevant to the grazing and/or agricultural operations (water troughs, tanks, fencing, irrigation lines) would be observed, noting location, current condition and the needs for adjustments or repairs. Access Road Observations — The conditions of roads, including surface condition, vegetation cover, culverts, recent maintenance or grading, and water diversion measures would be noted. Any signs of erosion, rutting or gullying on road surfaces or below the roads would be noted, particularly downstream of channel crossings. Yearly Non -Native Invasive Vegetation Non-native invasive vegetation with an emphasis on location, distribution and abundance of plant species. Invasive Species Observed - This would include a list of observed invasive plant species noting relative abundance, location and density, noting any differences from the prior year. Describe methods use for the previous year that were implemented for treatment or control of invasive species (grazing, herbicide application, mowing, etc.) and vegetation response to treatment methods. Twice a year — spring and summer (based on phenology of invasive species present) Stock Ponds Ensure aquatic habitat for special -status wildlife species is free of invasive predators such as fish and/or bullfrogs (this information is already collected as part of Midpen Districtwide CRFL monitoring for permit requirements and can be submitted for this purpose). Yearly — late winter/early spring Attachment 10 Table 1B. RMP — Monitoring and Adaptive Management Measures Monitoring Parameter Description Timing Native Vegetation/Habitats Desirable vegetation including native grasses, wildflowers and trees with an emphasis on location, distribution and abundance. Plant Communities Observed - This would include a list of plant communities observed within view of the photo point (e.g., annual grassland, woodlands, wetlands, etc.), with any measurable trends or transition between plant community types from the prior year (Exhibit 1) Annual point line monitoring for species composition in addition to RDM monitoring is recommended in Pastures 1-3 to monitor potential changes in vegetation guilds. Twice a year — spring and late fall Agricultural Practices (excluding grazing) Describe any impacts, positive or negative, observed as a result of agricultural practices (farming and/or grazing). Yearly - late fall Restoration Projects Monitor and report vegetation that was planted or seeded as part of restoration or remediation work (where applicable) with an emphasis on location, distribution, abundance and survival rate. Yearly — spring Climate Change Natural climatic changes (drought, floods, fire, etc.), geologic process, and biologic cycles beyond the land owner's control should be noted and described, as applicable. Yearly Grazing Management Monitor and report stocking rates, herd type and duration of grazing should be noted where applicable. Monitor and report condition of rangeland pastures that are grazed by horses. Yearly Soil Erosion Areas that are at risk for erosion or where soil loss has occurred as a result of surface water flow, wind, fire or human activity. These sites may include gullies, bare ground exposure, landslides, ruts or notable surface runoff. Historic activity would be noted in comparison to existing conditions, and recommended soil protection measures would be identified and implemented in compliance with existing permit requirements. Yearly — late winter/early spring Photo Points Baseline photos and photo -monitoring points have been established in Attachment A of the RMP (photo point locations are shown in Exhibit 1); a sample photo monitoring form has been included under Exhibit G of the RMP. The Grazing Annual Checklist shown in Exhibit J shall be used to record annual findings. Yearly — fall prior to first rainfall Wildlife Wildlife species that are observed at the location of the photo points, including information about the species and relative abundance shall be noted. Observations of special -status species shall be reported to Midpen to be included in annual reporting to applicable reporting agencies (photo point locations are shown in Exhibit 1). Twice a year — winter and summer Attachment 10 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Recommendations and Requirements Documents That Contains the Measure LL U Avoidance and Minimization Measures (By Resource) a R N 2 O d > 0" Q N w R m o_ O m N G '— CO 0 E re San Mateo Coastal Annex. EIR E 0) O co 0_ 0 d_ o 3 0 a MPROSD IPM Program EIR v ea cri as co 0 07 (0U N 0 W CO CS 1. Ponds and Wetlands 1A. Pond Monitoring and Annual Work Plan X X X 1B. Pond Berm Repairs/Maintenance X X 10. Pond Outlet Repairs/Maintenance X X 1D. Pond Basins Repairs/Maintenance X X 1E. Pond Trash Cleanup X X 1 F. Preconstruction Surveys Prior to Pond Maintenance, Enhancement, and Creation X X 1G. Implementation of Pond Maintenance, Enhancement, and Creation Activities X X 2. Creeks and Streams 2A. Preconstruction Surveys Prior to Maintenance, Enhancement, and Construction In and Near Creeks and Streams X X 2B. Culvert Replacement X X 2C. Culvert Repair/Maintenance X X X 2D. Minor Culvert Relocation Where the Road or Trail Is Not Also Being Relocated X X 2E. Removal of Existing Culverts or Replacement with Rolling Dips Or Fords X X Attachment 10 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Recommendations and Requirements Avoidance and Minimization Measures (By Resource) Documents That Contains the Measure CDFW SAA MPROSD BMPs for Avoid. and Minimize .for Bat Species San Mateo Coastal Annex. EIR Service Plan for San Mateo Coastal Annex. Area MPROSD Resource Management Policies MPROSD IPM Program Guidelines MPROSD IPM Program EIR Regulations for Use of MPROSD Lands RWQCB Waste Discharge and Water Qual Cert USFWS 10(a)1(A) Recovery Permit and Associated Biological Opinion 2F. New Culvert Installation (Non -Stream Crossing Culverts) X X 2G. Ford and Swale Replacement, Repair or Maintenance (Includes Drain Lenses and Causeways X X 2H. Bank Stabilization, Replacement, Repair, and Maintenance X X X 21. Implementation of Maintenance and Enhancement Activities Near Creeks and Streams X X X 2J. Integrated Pest Management Associated with the Use of Chemicals In and Near Creeks and Streams X X X X 3. Trail Construction and Maintenance (Project -Related) 3A. Routine Trail Maintenance X X X 3B. Vegetation Removal for Trail Maintenance X X X X 3C. Trail Construction and Siting X X X X 3D. Trail Drainage and Erosion Control X X 3E. Minor Trail Relocation X X X X 3F. Trail Closures and Restricting Use X X 3G. Permanent Trail Closure X X 3H. Exclusion Fencing for Federally -Listed Species X 31. Vegetation Removal to Maintain Trails, Roads or Staging Areas X X Attachment 10 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Recommendations and Requirements Documents That Contains the Measure LL U Avoidance and Minimization Measures (By Resource) a R IA 2 O d > 0" < w R m o_ O m N G '- CO 0 E d San Mateo Coastal Annex. EIR X E 0) O N 0_ 0 d_ o 3 0 O - MPROSD IPM Program EIR c ea 0 07 0 U N 0 W COcn as co CS N 0 0 N O N O ._ to 0- Q Q O a 1O �p C U ▪ O co E .2 ca LL N • d 4. Special -Status Plants 4A. Preconstruction Special -Status Plant Survey X X X 4B. Choris' Popcorn Flower: Rare Plant Exclusion X X X X 5. Salmonids 5A. General Anadromous Fish Avoidance and Minimization Measures X X X 5B. Enhance Habitat for Anadromous Fish X 5C. Monitor Sensitive Fish Species X 5D. Integrated Pest Management In and Near Fish Habitat X X 6. California Red -Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake 6A. Compliance with Federal Permits for CRLF and SFGS X X 6B. Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Ponds and Creeks and Streams X X X X X X 6C. Yearly Work Proposals for CRLF and SFGS Enhancement X X 6D. Biological Monitors X X 6E. Preconstruction Meeting and Construction Training X X 6F. Stop Work Authority for CRLF and SFGS X X 6G. CRLF and SFGS Preconstruction Surveys X X 6H. Egg Mass Avoidance X X Attachment 10 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Recommendations and Requirements Avoidance and Minimization Measures (By Resource) Documents That Contains the Measure CDFW SAA MPROSD BMPs for Avoid. and Minimize .for Bat Species San Mateo Coastal Annex. EIR Service Plan for San Mateo Coastal Annex. Area MPROSD Resource Management Policies MPROSD IPM Program Guidelines MPROSD IPM Program EIR Regulations for Use of MPROSD Lands RWQCB Waste Discharge and Water Qual Cert USFWS 10(a)1(A) Recovery Permit and Associated Biological Opinion 61. Seasonal Work Period in Ponds X X 6J. Agency Notification of Enhancement Activities for CRLF and SFGS X X 6K. Vegetation Removal by Mechanized Equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS Sensitive Sites X X 6L. Vegetation Removal at Ponds X X X X X 6M. CRLF and SFGS Exclusion for Sediment Removal with Large Equipment X X 6N. No Stockpiling of Vegetation X 60. Vehicle Restrictions X X 6P. No Stockpiling of Soil X 6Q. Cease Activities for CRLF/SFGS in the Work Area X X 6R. CRLF Emergency Salvage and Recovery X 6S. CRLF and SFGS Reporting Requirements X X 6T. Integrated Pest Management in CRLF and SFGS Habitat X X X X 7. San Francisco Dusky -Footed Woodrat 7A. SFDW Protection Preconstruction Survey 8. Special Status Bat Species X 8A. Preconstruction Surveys X X X X X X Attachment 10 Table 2. Existing Permits and Guiding Documents — Recommendations and Requirements Avoidance and Minimization Measures (By Resource) 8B. Tree Removal Associated with Bats Documents That Contains the Measure LL U a R CO) 2 O d > 0" Q N w R m o_ O m N G '- CO 0 E re E 0) O N 0- 0 0- N o 3 O O 0 a X v c co 0 07 co '= co o N 0 W co cn GO fi 8C. Non -Tree Roost Exclusion Associated with Bats X X X 9. Raptors and Birds 9A. Nesting Bird Surveys X X X 9B. Active Nests 9C. Active Nest Buffers X X X 9D. Nesting Habitat Removal or Modification X X X 10. Integrated Pest Management 10A. Invasive Animal Control X X X 10B. Vegetation Management X X X X 11. Grazing 11A. Use Grazing for Vegetation Management X X X X 11B. Use Grazing for Habitat Enhancement X X X 110. Grazing by Horses X Attachment 10 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Biological Resources a. Substantial Effect through Habitat Modifications on any 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 Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2) Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation 2A. Preconstruction surveys prior to maintenance, enhancement and construction in and near creeks and streams 3H. Exclusion fencing for Federally -listed species 4A. Preconstruction special -status plant surveys 4B. Choris' popcorn flower rare plant exclusion 5A. General anadromous fish avoidance and minimization measures 5B. Enhance habitat for anadromous fish 5C. Monitor sensitive fish species 5D. Integrated pest management in and near fish habitat 6A. Compliance with federal permits for CRLF and SFGS 6B. Implement avoidance and minimization measures for ponds, creeks and streams 6C. Yearly work proposals for CRLF and SFGS enhancement 6D. Biological monitors 6E. Preconstruction meeting and construction training 6F. Stop work authority for CRLF and SFGS 6G. CRLF and SFGS preconstruction surveys 6H. Egg mass avoidance 61. Seasonal work period in ponds 6J. Agency notification of enhancement activities for CRFL and SFGS 6K. Vegetation removal by mechanized equipment at CRLF and SFGS sensitive sites 6L. Vegetation removal at ponds Potentially significant B10-1: Pond Enlargement or Creation, when Ponds are Decommissioned B10-2: Revegetation and Enhancement of Aquatic Habitat for CRLF and SFGS Less than significant with mitigation Attachment 10 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation 6M. CRLF and SFGS exclusion for sediment removal with large equipment 6N. No stockpiling of vegetation 60. Vehicle restrictions 6P. No stockpiling of soil 6Q. Cease activities for CRLF and SFGS in the work area 6R. CRLF emergency salvage and recovery 6S. CRLF and SFGS Reporting Requirements 6T. Integrated pest management in CRLF and SFGS habitat 7A. SFDW Protection Preconstruction Survey 8A. Preconstruction surveys for special status bat species 8B. Tree removal associated with bats 8C. Non -tree roost exclusion associated with bats 9A. Nesting bird surveys 9B. Active nests 9C. Active nest buffers 10A. Invasive animal control 10B. Vegetation management 11A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 110. Grazing by horses b. Adverse Effect on Riparian Habitat or 1A. Pond monitoring and annual work plan Less than N/A Less than significant Other Sensitive Natural Community 1 B. Pond berm repairs/maintenance significant Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, Regulations or by the California 10. Pond outlet repairs/maintenance 1 D. Pond basins repairs/maintenance Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. 1 E. Pond trash cleanup Fish and Wildlife Service. 1 F. Preconstruction surveys prior to pond maintenance, enhancement and creation 1G. Implementation of pond maintenance, enhancement and creation activities Attachment 10 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation 2A. Preconstruction surveys prior to maintenance, enhancement and construction in and near creeks and streams 2B. Culvert replacement 2C. Culvert repair/maintenance 2D. Minor culvert relocation where the road or trail is not also being relocated 2E. Removal of existing culverts or replacement with rolling dips or fords 2F. New culvert installation (non -stream crossing culverts) 2G. Ford and swale replacement, repair or maintenance (includes drain lenses and causeways) 2H. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and maintenance 21. Implementation of maintenance and enhancement activities near creeks and streams 2J. Integrated pest management associated with the use of chemicals in and near creeks and streams 3D. Trail drainage and erosion control 4B. Choris' popcorn flower rare plant exclusion 5B. Enhance habitat for anadromous fish 61. Season work period in ponds 6K. Vegetation removal by mechanized equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS sensitive sites 6L. Vegetation removal at ponds 6T. Integrated pest management in CRLF and SFGS habitat 9D. Nesting habitat removal or modification 10B. Vegetation management c. Have a substantial adverse effect on 1A. Pond monitoring and annual work plan Potentially B10-3: Compensation for Less than significant with federally protected wetlands as defined 1 B. Pond berm repairs/maintenance significant Loss of Jurisdictional mitigation by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 10. Pond outlet repairs/maintenance Waters and/or Wetlands (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) 1 D. Pond basins repairs/maintenance 1 E. Pond trash cleanup Attachment 10 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1 F. Preconstruction surveys prior to pond maintenance, enhancement and creation 1G. Implementation of pond maintenance, enhancement and creation activities 2A. Preconstruction surveys prior to maintenance, enhancement and construction in and near creeks and streams 2B. Culvert replacement 2C. Culvert repair/maintenance 2D. Minor culvert relocation where the road or trail is not also being relocated 2E. Removal of existing culverts or replacement with rolling dips or fords 2F. New culvert installation (non -stream crossing culverts) 2G. Ford and swale replacement, repair or maintenance (includes drain lenses and causeways) 2H. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and maintenance 21. Implementation of maintenance and enhancement activities near creeks and streams 2J. Integrated pest management associated with the use of chemicals in and near creeks and streams 3D. Trail drainage and erosion control 5B. Enhance habitat for anadromous fish 6B. Implement avoidance and minimization measures for ponds, creeks and streams 61. Seasonal work periods in ponds 6K. Vegetation removal by mechanized equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS sensitive sites 6L. Vegetation removal at ponds d. Interfere substantially with the 2H. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair Less than N/A Less than significant movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory and maintenance 21. Implementation of maintenance and enhancement activities near creeks and streams significant Attachment 10 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 2J. Integrated pest management associated with the use of chemicals in and near creeks and streams 5A. General anadromous fish avoidance and minimization measures 5B. Enhance habitat for anadromous fish 5D. Integrated pest management in and near fish habitat 6B. Implement avoidance and minimization measures for ponds, creeks and streams 6H. Egg mass avoidance for CRLF 61. Seasonal work periods in ponds. 6K. Vegetation removal by mechanized equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS sensitive sites 6L. Vegetation removal at ponds 6T. Integrated pest management in CRLF and SFGS habitats 8B. Tree removal associated with bat roosts 18C. Non -tree roost exclusion for bats 9A. Nesting bird surveys 9B. Active nests requirements 9C. Active nest buffers 9D. Nesting habitat removal or modification 10A. Invasive animal control 10B. Vegetation management 11A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 11C. Grazing by horses e. Conflict with any local policies or 1 F. Preconstruction surveys prior to pond Less than N/A Less than significant ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? maintenance, enhancement and creation 2A. Preconstruction surveys prior to maintenance, enhancement and construction in and near creeks and streams significant 2H. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and maintenance Attachment 10 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation 21. Implementation of maintenance and enhancement activities near creeks and streams 2J. Integrated pest management associated with the use of chemicals in and near creeks and streams 3B. Vegetation removal for trail maintenance 4A. Preconstruction special -status plant surveys 4B. Choris' popcorn flower rare plant exclusion 5A. General anadromous fish avoidance and minimization measures 5B. Enhance habitat for anadromous fish 5C. Monitor sensitive fish species 5D. Integrated pest management in and near fish habitat 6A. Compliance with federal permits for CRLF and SFGS 6B. Implement avoidance and minimization measures for ponds, creeks and streams 6C. Yearly work proposals for CRLF and SFGS enhancement 6D. Biological monitors 6E. Preconstruction meeting and construction training 6F. Stop work authority for CRLF and SFGS 6G. CRLF and SFGS preconstruction surveys 6H. Egg mass avoidance 61. Seasonal work period in ponds 6J. Agency notification of enhancement activities for CRFL and SFGS 6K. Vegetation removal by mechanized equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS sensitive sites 6L. Vegetation removal at ponds 6M. CRLF and SFGS exclusion for sediment removal with large equipment 6N. No stockpiling vegetation 60. Vehicle restrictions Attachment 10 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation 6P. No stockpiling of soil 6Q. Cease activities for CRLF and SFGS in the work area 6R. CRLF emergency salvage and recovery 6S. CRLF and SFGS Reporting Requirements 6T. Integrated pest management in CRLF and SFGS habitat 7A. SFDW protection preconstruction surveys 8A. Preconstruction surveys for special status bat species 8B. Tree removal 8C. Non -tree roost exclusion 9A. Nesting bird surveys 9B. Active nests 9C. Active nest buffers 9D. Nesting habitat removal or modification 10A. Invasive animal control 10B. Vegetation management 11A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 110. Grazing by horses f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, N/A No impact N/A No impact Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Geology and Soils b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Hydrology and Water Quality 21. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and maintenance 3D. Trail drainage and erosion control 6P. No stockpiling of soil 11A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 110. Grazing by horses Attachment 10 Table 8. Summary of Biological Environmental Impacts, Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Identified Mitigation Measures CEQA Checklist Question Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Identified in the Project Description and Table 2)6 Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Significance after Mitigation a. Violate any water quality standards or 21. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and Less than N/A Less than significant waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? maintenance 3D. Trail drainage and erosion control 6P. No stockpiling of soil significant 1 1A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11 B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 110. Grazing by horses c. Substantially alter the existing 21. Bank stabilization, replacement, repair and Less than N/A Less than significant 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 result in erosion or changes in surface flows? maintenance 3D. Trail drainage and erosion control 6P. No stockpiling of soil 1 1A. Use grazing for vegetation management 11 B. Use grazing for habitat enhancement 110. Grazing by horses significant Attachment 10 Appendix B Existing Permits and Guidance Documents The grazing recommendations and proposed projects outlined in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Toto Ranch Range Management Plan (RMP) must be implemented in accordance with the recommendations and requirements from the following existing permits and guidance documents. • CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification No 1600-2012-0444-R3 (2018) • Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (1999) • California Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract (Planning File No. AP 84-4, Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 46568, recorded in San Mateo County Records as Document No. 85015218 on February 15, 1985) • Service Plan for the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Area (2002) • San Mateo Coastal Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report (2002) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Resource Management Policies (2018) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual (2014) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Integrated Pest Management Program Environmental Impact Report (2014) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Preliminary Use and Management Plan (2012) • Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands (2014) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Toto Ranch Bat Roost and Acoustic Survey (2018) • RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certifications for Routine Maintenance Activities for Mid -Peninsula Open Space District, Order No. R2-2010-0083 (2010) • USFWS Intra-Service Biological Opinion on the issuance of a 10(a)1(A) permit to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the San Francisco Garter Snake and California Red -Legged Frog Habitat Enhancement Projects at their Open Space Preserves in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, California (2016) • USFWS Native Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Permit (2016) This section provides a summary of all avoidance and minimization measures from the listed permits and guidance documents, discussed by biological resource type or species. A summary table of avoidance and minimization measures and the guidance documents is included in Table 2 in Section 1.5, Proposed Project Components, of the IS/MND. The resource agencies and Midpen previously identified avoidance and minimization measures to reduce the potential for take of special -status species and to reduce the impacts to biological Attachment 10 resources to a less than significant level on a number of Midpen's preserves. The avoidance and minimization measures discussed below will be implemented concurrently and in conjunction with the implementation of the RMP. Although the summary of avoidance and minimization measures in this section and table are sufficient for impact analysis under CEQA, please note that neither this section, nor Table 2 or Table 8, should be used in place of the existing guiding documents and permits listed above for regulatory/permit compliance. 1. Ponds and Wetlands Midpen is responsible for the preservation of ponds through maintenance of artificial impoundment structures, especially where ponds provide habitat for sensitive aquatic species or provide watering sources for terrestrial wildlife (Midpen 2014a). To accomplish this, Midpen will monitor, repair, modify, and maintain stock ponds (Midpen 2014a). In addition, Midpen will manage agricultural leases and easements to maximize the protection and enhancement of riparian areas and water quality (Midpen 2014a). 1A. Pond Monitoring and Annual Work Plan Annual monitoring includes a field assessment of water quality and conditions of aquatic habitats containing spawning, breeding, or rearing habitat for special -status fish, reptile, amphibian, or other aquatic species (Midpen 2014a). The results of monitoring activities will be used to identify opportunities for habitat maintenance and enhancement, and may include vegetation management and/or the development and implementation of BMPs to manage vegetation to improve watershed productivity and water quality (Midpen 2014a). An annual work plan shall be submitted to the USFWS and shall describe proposed pond enhancement or pond creation activities. The annual plan will specify the ponds where work will be performed, the dates during which the work will be performed, and a description of the work to be performed, including monitoring. The annual plan must be approved by the USFWS prior to implementation. Pond enhancement activities (emptying, dredging) should take place between August 15 and November 1 (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 1 B. Pond Berm Repairs/Maintenance Berm Repairs/Maintenance are defined as any activity that results in the repair or maintenance of an existing earthen berm structure either through vegetation clearing or minor earthwork (CDFW 2018). This task includes filling in low spots on the berm surface and removal of woody vegetation on berm faces and repair of smaller scale earthen berms that are not regulated by the Division of Dam Safety. Berm repairs may only be completed with the following restrictions. Attachment 10 • Berm repairs are confined to existing berm structures and may not involve relocation or upsizing of any existing berms (CDFW 2018). • Berm repairs shall adhere to the terms and conditions of the USFWS Recovery Permit Number: TE225974-2, dated 12/22/16, and CDFW Memorandum of Understanding "Research and Recovery of San Francisco Garter Snake and California Tiger Salamander" dated April 6, 2017 (CDFW 2018). • Vegetation removal is limited to existing berm top, face, and no more than a six (6) foot buffer around the existing berm (CDFW 2018). 1C. Pond Outlet Repairs/Maintenance Repair of existing human made outlet channels and pipes associated with small scale earthen berms in order to remove blockages, replace failing or undersized outlet channels or pipes, to remove accumulated vegetation or sediment, or to place erosion control may be implemented with the following restrictions. • Work may only occur when the channel is dry adhering to the terms and conditions of the USFWS Recovery Permit Number: TE225974-2, dated 12/22/16, and CDFW Memorandum of Understanding "Research and Recovery of San Francisco Garter Snake and California Tiger Salamander" dated April 6, 2017 (CDFW 2018). • Vegetation removal is limited to no more than a six (6) foot buffer around the existing channel and may not extend into nearby natural drainages. Limited vegetation removal may occur on the pond access road to provide safe equipment access to the pond site (CDFW 2018). • No more than 200 feet of channel or 60 feet of pipe can be repaired in each location, including the sum of both banks (CDFW 2018). • A secondary outlet pipe may be installed to provide an emergency overflow in the event of blockage of the primary pond outlet/spillway (CDFW 2018). 1D. Pond Basins Repairs/Maintenance Repair of pond basins to remove accumulated sediment, invasive vegetation or to improve aquatic habitat conditions. Basin repairs may only be completed with the following restrictions. • Basin repairs involving earthwork or re -contouring may only occur when the pond is dry or when following the terms and conditions of the USFWS Recovery Permit Number: TE225974-2, dated 12/22/16, and CDFW Memorandum of Understanding "Research and Recovery of San Francisco Garter Snake and California Tiger Salamander" dated April 6, 2017 (CDFW 2018). • Basin repairs are confined to existing pond footprint and may not involve relocation or upsizing of any existing ponds (CDFW 2018). Attachment 10 • Vegetation removal is limited to invasive vegetation (including native species) having a detrimental impact to aquatic habitat conditions within the existing pond basin and banks (CDFW 2018). • Wetland vegetation removal is limited to that caused by direct removal of built up vegetation or sediment removal or to allow access to the pond basin for re -contouring (CDFW 2018). 1 E. Pond Trash Cleanup This task includes removal of non -natural materials from jurisdictional lakes, ponds and channels under the following restrictions. • Hazardous materials may only be removed under the professional guidance of a hazardous materials consultant with notification to both CDFW and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (CDFW 2018). • All work is to be done with hand tools, including come -along cable pullers, except that vehicle mounted winches may be used to remove collected or very heavy materials from the channel. • Vegetation removal is limited to that caused by direct removal or minor trimming to allow access to the channel or material to be removed (CDFW 2018). • Access points may be opened no more than every 50 yards to remove materials. No grading and only limited vegetation removal shall take place to open an access point (CDFW 2018). 1F. Preconstruction Surveys Prior to Pond Maintenance, Enhancement, and Creation Activities including mechanical dredging, excavating, and bulldozing for shoring up earthen berms or leveling spillways will require pre -activity visual surveys as well as monitoring during the activities. Pre -activity surveys will take place the day prior to the proposed maintenance or construction actions (see preconstruction surveys in Special -Status Species and Raptors and Birds sections below). In addition, biologists will determine routes to be marked for vehicle travel off of marked improved roads, extent of project disturbance, areas of ground disturbance where exclusion fencing will be required, how many biological monitors will be required during the actions based on the size of the affected area and the density of affected CRLF, and the presence of special -status species or nesting birds that may be affected by project activities (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Buffers to avoid impacts to any species or nests present can be set up during these surveys. Attachment 10 Surveys and monitors will normally not be required for small scale pond maintenance activities using hand tools and fewer than five persons per one half acre (CDFW 2018). Surveys and monitors during the pond repair and maintenance activities will only be conducted by federal and state permitted biologists in accordance with their permits (CDFW 2018). 1G. Implementation of Pond Maintenance, Enhancement, and Creation Activities Pond enhancement and pond creation activities include vegetation removal, basin deepening or recontouring and sediment removal, berm repair and strengthening, and planting vegetation, all of which may be performed manually or using light and/ or heavy machinery. Draining of ponds to perform the authorized work should only occur during the part of the year when the tadpole life stage of the frog has been completed and before the subsequent breeding season. In northern California, this corresponds to a work period between August 15 and November 1 (USFWS 2016a). Within two days of the start of work on a pond, that pond will be sampled by a qualified biologist to ensure that all frogs from that pond are in the post -metamorphic stage and will be minimally affected by draining the pond (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Exclusion fencing will be placed, at a minimum, around the immediate work area where machinery will be operating. During activities involving mechanized equipment, biological monitors will maintain exclusion fencing and evaluate work performed during pond activities. Monitors are required to temporarily stop any work that they believe may harm the San Francisco Garter (SFGS). Work will not resume until a satisfactory method is agreed upon to minimize take of the CRLF or SFGS (USFWS 2016a). Vehicles traveling to and from the work site off of established ranch roads must travel slowly (5 mph) and be preceded by a monitor to ensure that snakes or other animals will not be run over by the passing vehicle. Vehicle monitors need not be trained biologists (USFWS 2016a). For vegetation removal on berms or other sites with known California red -legged frog observances, vegetation shall be cut down to 3 inches by hand tools (weed whacker, etc.). Once the ground is visible, a visual survey for the snake and frog shall be conducted. If no sensitive species are found in the area, removal of vegetation may continue by mowing or mechanized equipment very slowly with a biological monitor walking in front of the equipment to observe. If a snake or frog is observed, all activities shall cease, and the USFWS shall be notified immediately. Snakes and frogs can be relocated only if a person is permitted by the USFWS and approved by CDFW for this specific project to handle the snake or the frog (USFWS 2016a). Vegetation management activities that could result in the destabilization of stream banks or increase sediment input into waters of the State are prohibited (RWQCB 2010). Attachment 10 Vegetation management activities shall not adversely impact the riparian zone, shade, canopy coverage, or habitat. Overall impacts of vegetation management activities shall improve beneficial uses (RWQCB 2010). If CRLF or SFGS are known to occur in a particular pond, cattails, tules, and emergent vegetation shall be removed by hand when feasible. If mechanized equipment is used, two biological monitors or qualified biologists shall be onsite monitoring the scoop bucket while scooping and watching each load unload. Vegetation removed shall be placed directly into a disposal vehicle and removed from the site. Vegetation shall not be piled on the ground unless it is later transferred, piece by piece, under the direct supervision of the biological monitor or qualified biologist or is going to remain on site for erosion control or slash and not be moved or disturbed. Soil shall not be stockpiled on the ground unless it is on a paved surface or staging area where there are no burrows (USFWS 2016a). In work areas containing emergent vegetation (e.g., tules, cattails), vegetation shall be inspected for California red -legged frog eggs masses prior to work. A buffer of vegetation at least 10 feet in diameter shall be left around any egg masses found. Permittee shall keep a record of any sites where egg masses are found and shall conduct vegetation removal at these sites prior to November 1 in subsequent years. Staff shall avoid entering the channel to avoid dislodging egg masses. Trimming activities shall be performed from the banks, if possible (USFWS 2016a). Shooting, trapping, and gigging of aquatic species will be conducted only by a qualified biologist with experience in the identification of CRLF. Inadvertently trapped CRLF will be released immediately upon discovery (USFWS 2016a). All staging will occur on adjacent access roads or previously disturbed areas. Soil and rip -rap will be staged in areas that have been previously disturbed (i.e., service road, turnouts, etc.). If repair activities affect the active channel, the work area will be isolated from flowing stream segments using silt fences, wattles, and/or cofferdams and restored to pre -project conditions after maintenance is complete (RWQCB 2010). Maintenance of bridges and culverts, stream bank stabilization, vegetation management and habitat enhancement will reduce the amount of sediment delivered to maintained channels and will enhance habitat for rare and endangered species (RWQCB 2010). 2. Creeks and Streams Maintenance of bridges and culverts, stream bank stabilization, vegetation management, and habitat enhancement will reduce the amount of sediment delivered to maintained channels and will enhance habitat for rare and endangered species (RWQCB 2010). Attachment 10 2A. Preconstruction Surveys Prior to Maintenance, Enhancement, and Construction In and Near Creeks and Streams Preconstruction surveys prior to maintenance, enhancement, and construction in and near creeks and streams, including culvert replacement and/or repair, vegetation management, and erosion control will require pre -activity visual surveys as well as monitoring during the activities (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Pre -activity surveys will take place the day prior to the proposed maintenance or construction actions (see preconstruction surveys in Special -Status Species and Raptors and Birds sections below). In addition, biologists will determine routes to be marked for vehicle travel off marked/improved roads, extent of project disturbance, and the presence of special -status species or nesting birds that may be affected by project activities. Buffers to avoid impacts to any species or nests present can be set up during these surveys (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Surveys and monitors must be on site during the pond repair and maintenance activities will only be conducted by federal and state permitted biologists in accordance with their permits (CDFW 2018). 2B. Culvert Replacement Replacement of any existing concrete, wood, plastic (ABS, HDPE etc.) or metal pipe culvert up to 48 inches inner diameter (unless authorized to be a larger diameter by resource agencies) may be replaced with the following restrictions. • Work shall be done only when the channel is dry, except in perennial streams or during wet weather years in which the channel does not dry. In these instances, work will be scheduled during periods of low flow and must adhere to Midpen's dewatering BMPs and the associated Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certification covering the proposed work. When working within wet channels there will be a designated water quality monitor to monitor and document turbidity entering and exiting the work site (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). • The new culvert shall typically be as large as or larger than the existing culvert unless the original culvert was oversized or a natural obstruction such as bedrock is encountered. For anything other than an ephemeral drainage, the culvert shall be sized where feasible to convey a 100 -year flow or cover the entire channel width (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). • Total earthwork shall not exceed 80 cubic yards per culvert, not including any energy dissipater (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). • The new culvert shall be installed at or below grade (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Attachment 10 2C. Culvert Repair/Maintenance Standard practice is to clean culverts of obstructions once they are 10-20% blocked. Culverts with recurring blockages are cleaned annually, regardless of the amount of blockage. Sediment, vegetation or debris shall be removed using handtools in creeks supporting salmonids, unless other methodology is submitted to CDFW in writing during annual project notifications. Sediment, vegetation or debris may be removed with mechanized equipment in creeks that do not provide habitat for salmonids. Removal of up to a maximum amount of five (5) cubic yards per culvert is covered under some permits (CDFW 2018). Culverts that are more than 1/3 blocked may be cleaned at any time, even during periods when the channel is wet, with the following restrictions. • Up to 3 cubic yards of material may be removed, using hand tools only, under any conditions. • Removal of amounts greater than 3 cubic yards requires that the channel be dewatered first, and heavy equipment may be used with written approval from CDFW (CDFW 2018). • The total cumulative area of disturbance shall not exceed 150 feet of channel or 2,000 square feet of area, whichever is less (CDFW 2018). • After completion of the work, the disturbed area shall immediately be treated with erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) sufficient to control turbidity and sediment loss (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). • Nearby perched or otherwise unstable fill may be removed as well, up to 10 cubic yards (CDFW 2018). • No coho salmon are present (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 2D. Minor Culvert Relocation Where the Road or Trail Is Not Also Being Relocated Relocation or replacement of a culvert with a rolling dip within 25 feet of the original location to correct poor drainage conditions or improve sediment control with the following restrictions. • The total amount of earthwork may not exceed 80 cubic yards (CDFW 2018). • Work shall be done only when the channel is dry, except in perennial streams or during wet weather years in which the channel does not dry. In these instances, work will be scheduled during periods of low flow and must adhere to Midpen's dewatering BMPs and the associated Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certification covering the proposed work. When working within wet channels there will be a designated water quality monitor to monitor and document turbidity entering and exiting the work site (CDFW 2018). Attachment 10 • The new culvert shall be installed at or below grade and shall include an energy dissipater or down drain as appropriate (CDFW 2018). • Where feasible, the new culvert shall accommodate a 100 -year flow or the entire channel width, whichever is greater or more feasible (CDFW 2018). • Vegetation removal is limited to no more than a five-foot buffer around the culvert and to trimming of no more than 20% of any individual tree canopy within that five- foot buffer (CDFW 2018). 2E. Removal of Existing Culverts or Replacement with Rolling Dips or Fords Removal of culverts and filling in of the associated cross drain or replacement with a rolling dip or ford, with the following restrictions. • No more than one culvert may be removed for every hundred yards of trail or road length if the culvert is in a natural channel (CDFW 2018). • If the channel is non -natural (created by the original emplacement of the culvert), any number of culverts may be removed (CDFW 2018). 2F. New Culvert Installation (Non Stream -Crossing Culverts) New culverts may be installed to maintain existing roads and trails with the following restrictions. • New culverts shall not be installed in streams but shall be limited to engineered drainage ditches associated with roads and trails (CDFW 2018). • If an existing road or trail has an inadequately drained inboard ditch (excessive length between existing ditch relief culverts or dips), 1 new ditch relief culverts (where rolling dips would be insufficient) may be placed as directed by Best Management Practices and/or by the project engineer to adequately convey storm water and reduce sediment to downstream watercourses (CDFW 2018). 2G. Ford and Swale Replacement, Repair, or Maintenance (Includes Drain Lenses and Causeways) Ford or swale replacement with culverts, bridges or small puncheons, shall be submitted to CDFW in writing through annual project notifications (CDFW 2018). Full replacement of existing fords or repair/maintenance by replacing rock and removing sediment and woody debris can be undertaken with the following restrictions. • No use of chemicals, concrete, mortar or other sealants or adhesives (CDFW 2018). • This category applies only to narrow width trails and emergency vehicle/multi-use trails where the drainage does not support salmonids (CDFW 2018). Attachment 10 • The ford is not on an intermittent or perennial drainage or, if it is, the ford has been confirmed by CDFW to not be considered a barrier to the movement of aquatic organisms (CDFW 2018). • Vegetation removal is limited to no more than a five-foot buffer around the existing ford and to trimming of no more than 20% of any individual tree canopy within the five-foot buffer only (CDFW 2018). • All work shall be done when the channel is dry, except in perennial streams or during wet weather years in which the channel does not dry. In these instances, work will be scheduled during periods of low flow and must adhere to Midpen's dewatering BMPs and the associated Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certification covering the proposed work (CDFW 2018). • When working within wet channels there will be a designated water quality monitor to monitor and document turbidity entering and exiting the work site (CDFW 2018). 2H. Bank Stabilization, Replacement, Repair, and Maintenance Small bank and streambed erosion control projects must minimize water quality and erosion impacts. For repair only (not new construction), rip -rap may be replaced above or below failed sections of structures to aid in integrity of those structures. Riprap of proper size and weight to withstand high water flows will be set below grade and keyed into the bank (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). Work will be confined to the damaged or failed sections and immediate adjacent bank area affected by the damage failure. No more than 40% of bank repairs in a given year will use "hard" or impervious structure design without prior consultation with CDFW (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). Streambank areas receiving rock slope protection shall be back -filled with appropriate native or clean imported topsoil. The topsoil will fill some portions of the voids in the rock slope protection above the normal high water mark and provide a substrate for revegetation efforts. This work will be done manually using hand tools and power tools such as a toter or mule for single-track trail environments or an excavator or dump truck when needed for multiuse trails or roads (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). Other bank stabilization measures that may be employed include broadcast and hydro -seeding, riparian vegetation planting, slopes armored with rocks or sandbags staked with live willow and other bioengineering techniques such as willow staking, live willow pole drains, vegetated crib walls, log or rock weirs (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). Riparian trees shall be protected from damage to the greatest extent possible during repair and replacement (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). Attachment 10 21. Implementation of Maintenance and Enhancement Activities Near Creeks and Streams Manage vegetation to improve watershed productivity and water quality (Midpen 2014a; RWQCB 2010). Vegetation management activities that could result in the destabilization of stream banks or increase sediment input into waters of the State are prohibited (RWQCB 2010). Vegetation management activities shall not adversely impact the riparian zone, shade, canopy coverage, or habitat (Midpen 2014a; RWQCB 2010). Utilize existing, develop, define and implement best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality (Midpen 2014a). Monitor water quality and condition of aquatic habitats containing spawning, breeding, or rearing habitat for special -status fish, reptile, amphibian, or other aquatic species (Midpen 2014a). 2J. Integrated Pest Management Associated with the Use of Chemicals In and Near Creeks and Streams When conducting chemical treatments within or with potential to affect waters and with the potential to discharge directly or indirectly to waters of the U.S., Midpen must consult with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, CDFW, and USFWS, which may require Midpen to submit a Notice of Intent to Discharge and develop an Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan (RWQCB 2010, Midpen 2014a and 2041b). The permit includes design and operational BMPs that must be implemented to reduce the level of contaminated runoff, including monitoring and reporting to document and minimize pollutant discharge and ensure pollutants do not adversely affect waters (RWQCB 2010, Midpen 2014a and 2041b). If pollutants are found to be exceeding water quality standards application must stop, or additional BMPs must be developed to bring the activities into compliance (RWQCB 2010, Midpen 2014a and 2041b). 3. Trail Construction and Maintenance (Project -Related) 3A. Routine Trail Maintenance All Routine Maintenance Activities will be done in accordance with the Midpen's Best Management Practices and Species Avoidance Measures for Routine Maintenance work. Identify, avoid, and minimize significant impacts of altered water flow on plants and animals, including aquatic organisms (Midpen 2014a). When necessary, restore hydrologic processes altered by human activity by installing erosion control materials and structures, removing culverts and drainage diversions where appropriate, and using improved drainage structures that minimize alteration of hydrology (Midpen 2014a). The appropriate resource agencies shall be contacted regarding any trail alignments or other improvements that may impact sensitive habitats, special -status species, or their habitat. Plant Attachment 10 replacement shall be native to the area and suitable for the site conditions (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). 3B. Vegetation Removal for Trail Maintenance Removal of native vegetation shall be avoided as much as possible; existing native vegetation shall only be removed as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width. The minimum horizontal clearing width from physical obstructions varies based on the type of trail but should be no less than two feet from the outer limits of the trail tread and shall be determined on a case by case basis to protect special natural features (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). Maximum vertical distance from overhanging branches shall be 12 feet on trails open to equestrian or bicycle use (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). Maximum vertical distance from overhanging branches shall be eight feet on hiking trails. Clearing shall be determined on a case -by -case basis to protect special natural features. Good pruning practices should be followed when vegetation growth must be cleared. Ground cover plants and low shrubs should not be cleared beyond the original construction stand. The construction stand shall be defined as the trail tread width plus 1-2 feet from each side of the edge of the trail tread (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). Noxious plants (listed by California Invasive Pest Plant Council) shall be controlled along trails and the edges of staging areas in a timely manner. 3C. Trail Construction and Siting Any new road and trail installation project will be described in the annual work plan and approved by the USFWS prior to the start of the project (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Align new trails to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats, special -status species, and heritage and significant trees (Midpen 2014a). If any impacts to sensitive species may occur, Midpen will consult with the appropriate agencies (e.g., CDFG, USFWS, NMFS) to ensure that impacts will be avoided or mitigation is adequate (Midpen 2002a). Trail design shall include barriers to control trail use and prevent environmental damage. Barriers may include fences, vegetation, stiles, and/or fallen trees or branches (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). When parallel to a stream or riparian zone, trails shall generally be set back from the top of bank or from the outside edge of the riparian zone, whichever is greater, except where topographic, resource management, or other constraints or management objectives make such a setback not feasible or undesirable. Riparian setbacks may be adjusted on a case -by -case basis based upon advice of a qualified biologist and with the concurrence of reviewing agencies, where applicable (Midpen 2002a, 2014c and 2014a). Attachment 10 Trail crossings of streams and drainages shall be designed to minimize disturbance through the use of bridges, fords, or culverts, whichever is least environmentally damaging. Bridges and culverts shall be designed so that they visually and functionally blend with the environment and do not substantially interfere with the movement of native fish. Sufficient depth and velocity of water through the culvert shall exist in fish -bearing streams for passage of native fish and other native aquatic species during high and low flow conditions. Equestrian trail access shall be restricted at fish -bearing streams during critical times, such as during spawning, unless bridges and culverts are provided for horse use (Midpen 2002a). Trails and other improvements shall avoid wetlands and other jurisdictional waters, including seasonal wetlands, seeps, springs, and farm ponds, wherever possible (Midpen 2002a). When not possible to avoid these features, trails, roads, and staging areas, shall be constructed so that streams are not permanently diverted nor interrupted, runoff is not concentrated, and potential water pollution and stream bank erosion and sediment delivery are minimized (Midpen 2014a). A wetlands biologist will conduct reconnaissance -level surveys of all improvements in areas with potential wetlands, and a formal wetland delineation will be required for any improvements that may directly impact wetlands (Midpen 2002a). Any improvements adjacent to wetland areas will be constructed so that fills avoid and minimize wetland impacts and minimum setbacks are allowed. Where feasible, setbacks from wetlands and other jurisdictional waters shall be a minimum of 25 feet for trails and 50 feet for staging areas and other improvements (Midpen 2002a). 3D. Trail Drainage and Erosion Control This task includes removal of sediment from roads and trails to improve drainage and prevent or repair erosion. Specific applications are listed below. • Cleaning roadside/trailside ditches. Limited to no more than 10 cubic yards of soil per 100 -yard length of road/trail. Also allows associated vegetation removal (CDFW 2018). • Slough and berm removal. Over time, use of trails and roads tends to compact and lower the road or trail surface, trapping drainage on the travel surface. This task allows for occasional removal (every 3-5 years) of that material, not to exceed 5 cubic yards per 100 -yard length of road/trail and not to exceed 10 cubic yards per 100 yard length of road (CDFW 2018). • Cleaning sediment accumulation in rolling dips. Rolling dips that are constructed in a drainage are considered in jurisdiction of CDFW, and removal of up to 2 cubic yards of sediment per 100 -yard length of road/trail may occur (CDFW 2018). • Landslide removal. Up to 5 cubic yards per event may be removed or up to 2 cubic yards under any conditions with the following restrictions: - Up to 2 cubic yards of material may be removed, using hand tools only, under any conditions (CDFW 2018). Attachment 10 - Removal of amounts greater than 2 cubic yards requires that the channel be dewatered first and heavy equipment may be used if submitted to CDFW in writing through annual notification process and where no coho salmon are present (CDFW 2018). The total area of disturbance shall not exceed 150 feet of channel or 2,000 square feet of area, whichever is less (CDFW 2018). The disturbed area shall immediately be treated with erosion control materials sufficient to control turbidity (CDFW 2018). - Nearby perched or otherwise unstable fill shall be removed as well, up to 5 cubic yards (CDFW 2018). 3E. Minor Trail Relocation Minor relocation of trails and roads may be implemented to improve drainage, remove paths from environmentally sensitive areas or achieve better stability. The following restrictions apply to narrow width trails. • The new location shall be no more than 400' upslope or downslope of the existing location (CDFW 2018). • New crossings shall be free -span bridges in creeks providing salmonid habitat or free - span bridges or mortar or concrete free fords in creek without salmonid habitat. • New culvert installation in relocated trails must be permitted by CDFW (CDFW 2018). • Vegetation removal is limited to no more than a six (6) foot buffer around the new crossing and to trimming of no more than 20% of any individual tree canopy in that six-foot buffer (CDFW 2018). • All work is to be done when the work area is dry, and the work period is outside the rainy season (CDFW 2018). • Work must be completed during the allowable work periods identified in regulatory permits (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). The following restrictions apply to relocation of other trails and roads. • The new location must be no more than 400' upslope or downslope of the existing location (CDFW 2018). • The total amount of earthwork may not exceed 7,525 cubic yards (CDFW 2018). • New crossings shall be free -span bridges in creeks providing salmonid habitat or free - span bridges or mortar or concrete free fords in creeks without salmonid habitat (CDFW 2018). • If a new culvert will be used for stream crossings, Permittee must apply for a separate/new permit from CDFW (CDFW 2018). Attachment 10 • All work is to be done when the work area is dry, except in perennial streams or during wet weather years in which the channel does not dry. In these instances, work will be scheduled during periods of low flow and must adhere to Midpen's dewatering BMPs and the associated Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certification covering the proposed work. When working within wet channels there will be a designated water quality monitor to monitor and document turbidity entering and exiting the work site (CDFW 2018; RWQCB 2010). • Vegetation removal is limited to no more than a five-foot buffer around the new crossing and to trimming of no more than 20% of any individual tree canopy with the five-foot buffer. • Existing access routes shall be used wherever suitable to minimize impacts of new construction in special -status species habitats. Realignments will be implemented where necessary to avoid adverse impacts on resources (Midpen 2002a). 3F. Trail Closures and Restricting Use Midpen shall manage human activities to control erosion. For example, areas where trails are eroding or causing erosion to adjacent areas should be abandoned, and where feasible, restored to a natural condition. Poorly designed or sited roads should be rerouted. Trails in areas prone to erosion should be closed to bicycle and equestrian use during the wet season (Midpen 2002a and 2014a). Techniques for limiting use may include, but are not limited to physical access controls and seasonal or intermittent closures (Midpen 2002a). A particular trail or other facility may need to be closed during seasonal periods to protect special -status species, to protect habitats where overuse threatens resource values, or for other reasons to protect biological resources (Midpen 2002a). Where a trail or surrounding habitat warrants special notice limiting trail use, the trail shall be clearly designated and should be equipped with use signs and appropriate barriers to discourage unauthorized use. Missing or damaged signs, gates, fences, and barriers shall be shall be repaired or replaced as soon as possible. Closure notices shall include the reason(s) for the closure, an estimate of how long the facility will be closed, and a telephone number to call for further information (Midpen 2002a). Periodic monitoring of known sensitive habitats adjacent to trails or other facilities shall be conducted to determine if unacceptable soil compaction or other adverse impacts are occurring (Midpen 2002a). If monitoring reveals that undesirable soil compaction or impact to a sensitive habitat is occurring, barriers or other appropriate measures (such as trail rerouting) shall be employed as needed to discourage off -trail use. Brush or other aesthetically acceptable barriers can be used to cover illegal trails, abandoned trails, or shortcuts to discourage use until natural vegetation returns (Midpen 2002a). Attachment 10 3G. Permanent Trail Closure Should sensitive habitat be impacted such that it necessitates permanently closing a trail or staging area, a management program to rehabilitate the area will be developed (Midpen 2002a). Such a program shall include disking and replanting or other techniques appropriate to the habitat type to return the site to a natural condition and sufficiently blocking the trail with barriers to effectively prohibit use. Management shall include monitoring the site to ensure that it returns to a natural condition without the intrusion of invasive exotic plants. Management shall also include design elements, maintenance, and monitoring to ensure that erosion is minimized. Construction and maintenance of trails will require the trimming and/or removal of vegetation along the trail route and staging areas (see Vegetation Removal to Maintain Trails, Roads, or Staging Areas, below). 3H. Exclusion Fencing for Federally Listed Species If the biological monitor or qualified biologist determines that sensitive species are not within the work area, equipment or materials may be moved onto the work site and project activities may commence under the observation of the biological monitor (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). If federally listed species are found in routine maintenance activity sites using large equipment to remove sediment, they shall be excluded from the project site (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). USFWS approved exclusion fencing shall be installed around the sediment removal site, staging areas and any areas where fill may be dumped. After installation of the fence barrier, a biological monitor or qualified biologist shall daily inspect the project work area, staging and stockpiling area prior to the commencement of activities (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 31. Vegetation Removal to Maintain Trails, Roads, or Staging Areas Maintenance of trails, roads, and staging areas includes the following activities: removal of vegetation, including root masses and trimming, where a road or trail or other surface or structure is being damaged; where plant growth blocks channels or reduces water flow; to protect water supply facilities; to allow adequate site distance for safety and aesthetic reasons; to provide emergency, maintenance, and recreational access to facilities; and to meet local fire codes; Control of invasive and non-native plants; managed livestock grazing; mowing, mastication, and manual control; native vegetation plantings to enhance riparian and aquatic habitats and to treat disturbed area (CDFW 2018). Non-native vegetation removal includes management of nonnative species through mowing, mastication, manual removal, bio-control (i.e. livestock or natural predator insects), shading, removal of trees that may impact facilities next to streams, ponds or bed and banks of streams, natural resources and/or water quality, and the replanting of native vegetation. Vegetation removal will not exceed 2,000 square feet at each location unless identified in the Midpen's Integrated Pest Management Work Plan submitted annual to CDFW (CDFW 2018). Attachment 10 Native vegetation planting in habitat enhancement and restoration areas includes installation of temporary irrigation, planting of locally collected native vegetation, weed control, and the installation of vegetation protective structures; and the installation of native vegetation and use of bioengineering techniques. Straw wattles, coir rolls, certified weed -free straw, erosion mats, etc. will be used to prevent erosion, minimize bank impacts, and prevent soil loss. If installed in an area where impacts to listed species could occur, wildlife friendly netting shall be utilized (CDFW 2018). There shall be no vegetation removal in excess of what is necessary to allow the level of access needed and to accommodate routine maintenance activities, passage of emergency vehicles where appropriate, and for defensible space or public safety. No vegetation shall be removed by excavation or cutting off below the soil unless approved in writing by CDFW (CDFW 2018). Invasive plant material removed during work activities shall be appropriately handled in order to prevent spread of invasive species including the following. • Suitable onsite disposal areas shall be identified to prevent the spread of weed seeds (CDFW 2018). • Invasive plant material shall be rendered nonviable when being retained onsite. Permittee shall desiccate or decompose plant material until it is nonviable. Depending on type of plant, disposed plant material can be left out in the open as long as roots are not in contact with moist soil, or can be covered with a tarp to prevent material from blowing or washing away (CDFW 2018). • Permittee shall monitor all sites where invasive plant material is disposed on -site and treat any newly emerged invasive plants (CDFW 2018). • When transporting invasive plant material off -site for disposal, the plant material shall be contained in enclosed bins, heavy duty bags, or a securely covered truck bed. All vehicles used to transport invasive plant material shall be cleaned after each use (CDFW 2018). 4. Special -Status Plants 4A. Preconstruction Special -Status Plant Survey Conduct surveys for special -status plants during the appropriate season before significant site - specific development or any unusual anticipated increase in use. Modify the project or use to avoid impacting such plants (Midpen 2014a). Prior to the start of project activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct protocol level surveys for sensitive plant species during the peak blooming period (CDFW 2018). Survey methodology available at: http://www.wildlife.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/Protocols_for Surveying_and_ Evaluating_Impacts.pdf. Attachment 10 4B. Choris' Popcorn Flower: Rare Plant Exclusion In jurisdictional areas having suitable habitat characteristics and within 1/4 mile of known occurrence, rare plant exclusion measures shall be implemented as described below. Rare Plant Exclusion If Choris' popcorn flowers or other rare plant species are found or known to occur near any project area, the location shall be flagged, and Midpen avoidance and protection measures, which also conform to CDFW and USFWS MOUs and permits, will be implemented (these measures are discussed in Table 1A, Table 2, the Biological Resources section and Biological Mitigation Measure 4B). Avoidance measures may include exclusionary fencing and establishing buffer zones; all rare plants and associated buffer zones shall be avoided during maintenance activities (CDFW 2018). Special -Status Animals 5. Salmonids 5A. General Anadromous Fish Avoidance and Minimization Measures No routine maintenance activity requiring dewatering shall be undertaken in creeks where known occurrences of coho salmon exist. Permittee shall notify the CDFW and apply for a separate/new permit (CDFW 2018). Avoidance and minimization measures that apply to creeks and streams (see above) must be undertaken in coho- and steelhead-bearing creeks and streams. 5B. Enhance Habitat for Anadromous Fish Inventory and assess stream reaches accessible to anadromous fish to identify impediments to fish passage and opportunities for habitat enhancement. Remove artificial barriers to fish passage where removal will enhance spawning and rearing habitats (Midpen 2014a). Enhance spawning and rearing habitats for native fisheries through restoration. Prioritize restoration and enhancement of areas providing habitat to sensitive species. 5C. Monitor Sensitive Fish Species Monitor sensitive fish species populations in Midpen waters (see Table 2). 5D. Integrated Pest Management In and Near Fish Habitat To minimize impacts to coho and steelhead resulting from implementation of Midpen's IPMP, the following measures apply. Attachment 10 • Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical IPM treatments in an area that is federally designated critical habitat for central California coast coho salmon or central California coast steelhead, the Midpen will consult with the USFWS, NMFS and CDFW as appropriate pursuant to ESA/CESA (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). • Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical IPM treatments in occupied habitat of central California coast coho salmon or central California coast steelhead, the Midpen will consult with USFWS, NMFS, and CDFW (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). 6. California Red -Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake As discussed in their species profiles, CRLF and SFGS often co-occur in the same aquatic and upland habitats because they both utilize aquatic habitats for foraging, breeding, cover, and dispersal, and because CRLF are a preferred prey species of SFGS. Typically, the shared habitats are in ponds and surrounding grasslands. In addition, CRLF also utilize creeks and streams for foraging, breeding, and dispersal habitat, whereas SFGS do not. CRLF are known to occur at Toto Ranch, and SFGS are known to occur within 1 mile of Toto Ranch. Therefore, a number of management documents and regulatory permits have combined avoidance and minimization measures for these species. This section will do the same, with the most conservative measures utilized where effort and timing are similar. Requirements specific to either CRLF or SFGS are called out where appropriate or where the differences in requirements are significant. 6A. Compliance with Federal Permits for CRLF and SFGS Any project activities must comply with USFWS Recovery Permit Number: TE225974-2, dated 12/22/16, and CDFW Memorandum of Understanding "Research and Recovery of San Francisco Garter Snake and California Tiger Salamander" dated April 6, 2017 (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a). 6B. Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Ponds and Creeks and Streams To protect CRLF and SFGS, avoidance and minimization measures that apply to ponds and creeks and streams (see above) must be undertaken in all ponds, creeks, and streams at Toto Ranch. 6C. Yearly Work Proposals for CRLF and SFGS Enhancement Per USFWS and CDFW permits, annual work proposals must be submitted to these agencies. All maintenance activity proposals involving mechanized equipment and associated monitoring proposals must be approved by CDFW and USFWS prior to implementation (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a). The annual work plan will include, as appropriate and applicable: • an explanation of the purpose of each site -specific activity planned for that calendar year, Attachment 10 • the names and permit numbers of personnel conducting the work, • a clear description of the methods to be used, • the number and dates of activities, • a map (at a minimum, a 1:24,000 scale U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographical map) depicting the location and boundary of the activity area(s), • identification of existing habitat conditions in terms of vegetative composition/cover and the presence (density) of potential aestivation habitat or escape cover (e.g., burrows, rock formations, etc.) including pond buffer zones and refugia areas proposed for controlled bum activities, and • identification of specific recovery tasks to be accomplished by each proposed activity (USFWS 2016b). 6D. Biological Monitors Biological monitor(s) and/or qualified biologist(s) shall remain on the project site while routine maintenance activities are being conducted. Biological monitor(s) and/or qualified biologists shall be on the project site while routine maintenance activities are being conducted at these sites (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a). The minimum number of qualified biological monitors required at each pond site will be determined in advance by either the ranch manager or a permitted biological consultant based on pond size, the amount and complexity of work to be performed, and the equipment to be used. This number of monitors will be approved by USFWS prior to the start of any work (USFWS 2016b). Only biological monitors specifically authorized by the USFWS and CDFW to handle SFGS or CRLF (normally these will be individuals holding a federal recovery permit for the species) will be allowed to handle, transport, and relocate individuals of these species. When transporting individual SFGS and CRLF, precautions will be taken to ensure that the animals are not over- stressed and are maintained in safety. Such measures include: keeping animals in a cool, dark, and safe location (snake bag for SFGS and terrarium for CRLF), providing adequate hydration, maintaining a stable cool temperature to avoid over -heating, keeping animals isolated to prevent them from harming one another, and ensuring holding tanks or bags are kept clean to prevent the spread of any diseases (USFWS 2016b). Prior to the start of work, areas will be identified by the biological monitor and approved by the USFWS and CDFW as acceptable locations to which San Francisco garter snake and the California red -legged frog may be relocated if these species are encountered within a work area. Relocation areas will be a minimum of 500 feet from the boundary of any work area and will not include staging areas or roads. No CRLF or SFGS will be removed from Toto Ranch or maintained in captivity overnight without prior notification and written approval by USFWS and CDFW unless the animal is in need of emergency medical assistance. Medical assistance will be Attachment 10 provided to injured animals by a USFWS-approved, certified wildlife veterinarian familiar with amphibian and reptile care (USFWS 2016b). 6E. Preconstruction Meeting and Construction Training A chain -of -command for field crews and other on -site personnel will be established prior to commencement of all activities. This program will establish the biological monitors as the persons in charge of, and responsible for, all facets of project implementation. The specific chain -of -command will be defined at the pre -activity meeting to be held immediately prior to the initiation of work (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). In addition, biological monitors will provide biological awareness training to all persons prior to beginning work. The educational program will discuss the sensitivity of CRLF and SFGS and their habitat, and include visual materials on species identification, procedures to follow when encountering any CRLF and/or SFGS species in the work area, penalties for take, and all work restrictions within the Midpen. In addition, pocket -sized photo cards depicting CRLF and SFGS will be distributed to all personnel. To maintain safety and limit any chance of take or habitat disturbance, a simple system of hand signals will be established for the monitors, truck drivers, equipment operators, and field personnel to use during habitat enhancement and related activities (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6F. Stop Work Authority for CRLF and SFGS The biological monitor and/or qualified biologist shall have the authority to halt work activities that may affect CRLF adults, tadpoles, or egg masses and SFGS adults or nests/eggs until they can be moved out of harm's way (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6G. CRLF and SFGS Preconstruction Surveys Prior to and within 48 hours of the planned start of project activities in and near ponds, wetlands, creeks, and streams, a focused survey for CRLF and SFGS using agency approved protocol shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if they are in the area. If CRLF and/or SFGS are found, CDFW and USFWS shall be notified immediately to determine the correct course of action. No more than 24 hours prior to conducting pond enhancement activities, visual surveys will be conducted by walking at least a 50 -foot buffer area around the pond in an attempt to locate individual SFGS and CRLF (USFWS 2016b). A trained and permitted biologist will capture, transfer, and release in a safe area any SFGS and CRLF deemed to be in danger of being harmed by the prescribed enhancement activities. If a CRLF or SFGS is located during the pre-treatment surveys but escapes capture, the area where the snake or frog was lost will be marked by flag and a 50 -foot (15 meter) radius will be actively patrolled during the work. If necessary, individual SFGS may be held in captivity in a pillow case for less than 24 hours and may later be released near the point of capture after the work has been completed. After the pre-treatment survey, an Attachment 10 avoidance strategy will be devised and presented to all individuals involved in the pond enhancement prior to starting any activities. The number of SFGS and CRLF encountered and transferred to safe areas or held in captivity during treatment will be reported to USFWS, and each individual SFGS will be photographed for use in identification (USFWS 2016b). In work areas containing emergent vegetation (e.g., toles, cattails), vegetation shall be inspected for CRLF eggs masses prior to work. If work cannot be postponed, a buffer of vegetation at least 10 feet in diameter shall be left around any egg masses found. Permittee shall keep a record of any sites where egg masses are found and shall conduct vegetation removal at these sites prior to November 1 in subsequent years (CDFW 2018). During the surveys the lead biologist will mark any rodent burrows within the immediate work area that would be destroyed or otherwise affected by machinery or other maintenance activities and determine if they should be hand excavated to extract any CRLF or SFGS. Any SFGS found will be held in captivity until the activity is completed for the day using appropriate measures to avoid excessive stress of the animal (see Biological Monitors, above). Captive SFGS will be returned to the point of capture or to the nearest cover for release after the pond work has been completed for the day (USFWS 2016a). 6H. Egg Mass Avoidance Staff shall avoid entering the channel to avoid dislodging egg masses. Vegetation trimming activities shall be performed from the banks, if possible (CDFW 2018). 6/. Seasonal Work Period in Ponds If CRLF and/or SFGS are found in the pond and water is present in the pond, sediment removal and berm or outfall repair activities shall be performed from August 15 to November 1 (CDFW 2018). 6J. Agency Notification of Enhancement Activities for CRLF and SFGS Dredging and de -watering operations shall be submitted to and approved by CDFW prior to commencement of activities (CDFW 2018). 6K. Vegetation Removal by Mechanized Equipment at CRLF and/or SFGS Sensitive Sites For vegetation removal on berms or other sites within 1 mile of known CRLF and/or SFGS occurrences, vegetation shall be cut down to 3 inches by hand tools. Once the ground is visible, a visual survey for CRLF and/or SFGS shall be conducted. If no sensitive species are found in the area, removal of vegetation may continue by mowing or mechanized equipment very slowly with a biological monitor walking in front of the equipment to observe. If a CRLF and/or SFGS is observed, all activities shall cease and CDFW and USFWS shall be notified immediately. CRLF and/or SFGS can be relocated only if a person is permitted to handle CRLF and/or SFGS by the USFWS and approved by CDFW (CDFW 2018). Attachment 10 6L. Vegetation Removal at Ponds If CRLF are found, cattails, tules, and emergent vegetation shall be removed by hand when feasible. If mechanized equipment is used, one or more a two biological monitors or qualified biologists shall be onsite monitoring the scoop bucket while scooping and watching each load unload. CDFW shall be notified during the annual project notification process when mechanized equipment will be used for vegetation removal at ponds (CDFW 2018). 6M. CRLF and SFGS Exclusion for Sediment Removal with Large Equipment If CRLF and/or SFGS are found during preconstruction surveys, and routine maintenance requires the use of large equipment to remove sediment, CRLF and SFGS shall be excluded from the project site. USFWS/CDFW-approved exclusion fencing shall be installed around the sediment removal site, staging areas and any areas where fill may be dumped. After installation of the fence barrier, a biological monitor or qualified biologist shall daily inspect the project work area, staging and stockpiling area prior to the commencement of activities. If the biological monitor or qualified biologist determines that sensitive species are not within the work area, equipment or materials may be moved onto the work site and project activities may commence under the observation of the biological monitor (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6N. No Stockpiling of Vegetation If CRLF and/or SFGS are found, vegetation removed shall be placed directly into a disposal vehicle and removed from the site. Vegetation shall not be piled on the ground unless it is later transferred, piece by piece, under the direct supervision of the biological monitor or qualified biologist or is going to remain on site for erosion control or slash and not be moved or disturbed (CDFW 2018). 60. Vehicle Restrictions In areas within 1 mile of CRLF and/or SFGS occurrences, any vehicle parked on site for more than 15 minutes shall be inspected by the biological monitor or qualified biologist before it is moved to ensure that CRLF and/or SFGS have not moved under the vehicle (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Corridors for travel of vehicles and heavy machinery to the pond site will be established at least 24 hours in advance of the proposed work. Corridors that are not established on marked improved roads (paved or unpaved) require special consideration for use by any vehicle. During the use of these off -road corridors by vehicles and machinery, a monitor will proceed directly before the vehicle or machinery to ensure all SFGS, CRLF, and observable wildlife is cleared from the pathway of the oncoming vehicle. Monitors will signal vehicles to stop if a CRLF or SFGS is on the pathway and will allow the animal to clear the pathway by its own direction. Any handling of SFGS or CRLF must only be done by a qualified permitted individual. Measures will be taken to minimize the number of vehicles allowed on the property. All vehicles involved with Attachment 10 the site -specific work that are not transported to the work site will be retained in a prearranged, marked parking area in a clearing as close to the main road as possible. At least one monitor will ensure wildlife is clear from the parking area while vehicles are arriving and leaving. All vehicles must stay on designated roads (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Refueling of equipment will be conducted on heavy -gauge tarps made of chemically resistant polypropylene or other impervious material with vertical sides for spill containment. These containment tarps will be set up under the equipment prior to servicing or refueling. Once the work is completed, the tarp and its contents must be immediately removed from the property and all contaminants properly disposed of off -site. BMPs will be implemented immediately in case of fuel spillage. All vehicles entering the site will carry a functional fire extinguisher (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6P. No Stockpiling of Soil Soil shall not be stockpiled on the ground unless it is on a paved surface or staging area with no burrows (CDFW 2018). 6Q. Cease Activities for CRLF/SFGS in the Work Area If CRLF and/or SFGS enters the work area, all work shall stop until the animal leaves on its own. Only biological monitors specifically authorized by USFWS and CDFW to handle the CRLF or SFGS will be allowed to handle, transport, and relocate individuals of these species. The biological monitor and/ or qualified biologist may halt work activities that may affect the CRLF or SFGS until they can be moved out of harm's way. When transporting individual CRLF or SFGS precautions will be taken to ensure that the animals are not over -stressed and are maintained in safety. Such measures include: keeping animals in a cool, dark, and safe location (snake bag for snakes and terrarium for frogs), providing adequate hydration, maintaining a stable cool temperature to avoid over -heating, keeping animals isolated to prevent them from harming one another, and ensuring holding tanks or bags are kept clean to prevent the spread of any diseases (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6R. California Red -Legged Frog Emergency Salvage and Recovery Any red -legged frog egg masses or larvae observed in direct threat of drying or desiccation due to low water levels (e.g., egg mass found on high ground above the water level of a pond or stream or larvae found within a pond or stream that is currently very low and is known to dry or appears that it may dry prior to July 1) may be moved first into the pond or stream of origin (if no threat of drying) or into the nearest pond or stream reach having similar ecological conditions to those at the pond or stream reach of origin. Juvenile and adult red -legged frogs in direct threat of mortality or injury from human caused events (entrapment in human made structures, or in the Attachment 10 direct path of equipment during a restoration project) may also be moved to the nearest suitable aquatic feature (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Movement shall only occur to relocation sites within the same watershed (same sub -watershed preferred) within the same Preserve whenever possible. Exceptions shall be notified to the USFWS prior to conducting salvage activities. Dip and seine nets will be used to capture egg masses or larvae, and small containers will be used for transport. 6S. CRLF and SFGS Reporting Requirements Both USFWS and CDFW will be notified immediately if any SFGS or CRLF are injured or killed during the course of any enhancement or management activities. All other incidental observations will be reported in the daily field monitoring form (CDFW 2018; USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 6T. Integrated Pest Management in CRLF and SFGS Habitat Because Midpen's IPMP will be implemented at Toto Ranch in conjunction with the RMP, the following avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented. • Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical IPM treatments in an area that is both federally designated critical habitat and suitable aquatic habitat for CRLF or SFGS, Midpen will consult with the USFWS and CDFW as appropriate pursuant to ESA/CESA. Appropriate measures will be developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFW to ensure there is no loss of critical habitat for these species, or that unavoidable loss of critical habitat will be replaced through habitat enhancement or restoration. Such measures may include may include avoidance of breeding habitat, limiting activities to manual removal of vegetation, conducting activities outside the breeding season, or relocation and mitigation (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). • Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical IPM treatments within 15 feet of occupied habitat for CRLF or SFGS, Midpen will consult with USFWS and CDFW. Appropriate measures will be developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFW to ensure there is no take of these species, or that unavoidable take is fully compensated for through for through habitat enhancement or restoration activities, or purchase of mitigation credits. Shooting, trapping, and gigging of aquatic species will be conducted only by a qualified biologist with experience in the identification of CRLF and SFGS. Inadvertently trapped CRLF or SFGS will be released immediately upon discovery (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). • If permanent loss of federally designated critical habitat cannot be avoided, compensation will be provided through protection and enhancement of habitat within Midpen properties, purchase of offsite mitigation credits, and/or contribution to Attachment 10 regional conservation and recovery efforts for the species as determined in consultation with USFWS and CDFW (Midpen 2014b and 2014c). 7. San Francisco Dusky -Footed Woodrat (SFDW) In general, no grazing management or improvement projects proposed in the RMP will occur in chaparral or riparian habitat where SFDW and their nests occur. However, impacts to woodrat nests should be avoided during all maintenance and/or construction work. 7A. SFDW Protection Preconstruction Survey A preconstruction survey for SFDW nests will be conducted prior to all construction and/or maintenance work near riparian and/or chaparral or scrub habitats. All routine maintenance work in the proximity of SFDW and/or their nests shall adhere to the BMPs in Exhibit B (CDFW 2018). 8. Special -Status Bat Species No special -status bat species were detected during 2018 bat surveys, although these species may occur at Toto Ranch. If special -status bat species may be found in a project area that has impacts to potential roosting habitat, avoidance measures shall be implemented according to Midpen's bat BMPs (Midpen n.d.). These Bat BMPs are designed to avoid impacts to bat species and include the following actions. 8A. Preconstruction Surveys In areas of suitable habitat, preconstruction surveys are required for the following bat species: Pallid bat, Townsend's big -eared bat, and western red bat (CDFW 2018). If signs of bats are evident and removal or disturbance of bats is necessary, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for roosting bats prior to beginning work. Surveys will consist of daytime pedestrian surveys to look for visual signs of bats (e.g., guano), and if determined necessary, evening emergence surveys to note the presence or absence of bats. If evidence of bat roosting is found, the number and species of roosting bats will be determined. If no evidence of bat roosts is found, then no further study will be required. Bat detectors and/or infrared detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts but are not required (Midpen n.d.). 8B. Tree Removal If bat roosting sites are located in trees to be removed, such removal will occur outside of the April through August nursery season if possible (CDFW 2018; Midpen 2014b and 2014c). If removal of trees greater than sixteen inches diameter at breast height (dbh) during the April through August nursery season cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for roosting bats where suitable large trees are to be removed. Surveys will consist of daytime pedestrian surveys to look for visual signs of bats (e.g., guano), and if determined necessary, evening emergence surveys to note the presence or absence of bats. If evidence of roosting bats Attachment 10 is found, the number and species of roosting bats will be determined. If no evidence of bat roosts is found, then no further study will be required (CDFW 2018; Midpen 2014b and 2014c). Bats go into a deep torpor period November 16 through February 15, no building or tree work (over 16" dbh) is allowable during this time (Midpen n.d.). 8C. Non -Tree Roost Exclusion If surveys determine that special -status bats or maternity roosts are present and must be removed during the April through August nursery season, a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW. The exclusion plan will describe the method of exclusion, which may include the use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not re-enter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed by a bat expert to contain no bats. No bats will be excluded until the plan is approved by CDFW and alternative roosting habitat is available. The bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the site is closed (CDFW 2018; Midpen 2014b and 2014c). If individual non -breeding and non -special -status bats are present, a qualified biologist may be retained to remove the bats and work may proceed year-round. If maternity roosting or special - status bat species are present at any time, no work is allowed without first excluding and providing alternate roost site(s) outside of the breeding season (Midpen n.d.). Alternate roost site(s) must be determined by Midpen Natural Resources staff or a consulting biologist and submitted to California Department of Fish and Wildlife before installation (Midpen n.d.). Whenever possible alternative roost site(s) will be provided 6 months to 1 year prior to the removal of maternity roosting habitat to allow bats adequate time to discover the new locations (Midpen n.d.). Alternative roost site(s) shall be monitored for occupancy by a qualified biologist within one year of installation. Contractors, Midpen staff, and others working in areas known to support maternity roost site(s) and/or special -status bat species will be provided biological awareness training by a qualified biologist prior to the commencement of work. Because bats go into a deep torpor period November 16 through February 15, no building or tree work (over 16" dbh) is allowable during this time (Midpen n.d.). 9. Raptors and Birds 9A. Nesting Bird Surveys If project activities are scheduled during the nesting season of raptors and migratory birds, a focused survey for active nests of such birds shall be conducted by the qualified biologist within 15 days prior to the beginning of project -related activities (CDFW 2018). Surveys shall be conducted in all suitable habitat located at project work sites and in staging and storage areas. The minimum survey radii surrounding the work area shall be the following: i) 250 feet for passerines; ii) 500 feet for other small raptors such as accipiters; iii) 1,000 feet for larger Attachment 10 raptors such as buteos. The bird survey methodology and the results of the survey shall be submitted to the CDFW prior to commencement of project activities (CDFW 2018). Nesting seasons shall be defined as followed: i) March 15 to August 30 for smaller bird species such as passerines; ii) February 15 to August 30 for raptors (CDFW 2018). 9B. Active Nests An active nest is defined as a nest having eggs or chicks present, or a nest that adult birds have staked a territory and are displaying, constructing a nest, or are repairing an old nest. If active nests are found and work cannot be postponed, Midpen shall utilize the buffers and methods identified above (see Nesting Bird Surveys) and notify consult with the CDFW and the USFWS regarding appropriate action to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the FGC. If a lapse in project -related work of 15 days or longer occurs, another focused survey shall be conducted before project work is reinitiated. If active nests are found, Midpen shall consult with the CDFW and the USFWS prior to resumption of project activities (CDFW 2018). 9C. Active Nest Buffers Active nest sites shall be designated as "Ecologically Sensitive Areas" and protected (while occupied) during project activities with the establishment of flagging or a fence barrier surrounding the nest site. The minimum distances of the protective buffers surrounding each identified nest site shall be the following: i) 500 feet for large raptors such as buteos; ii) 250 feet for small raptors such as accipiters; iii) 250 feet for passerines. A biological monitor or qualified biologist shall monitor the behavior of the birds (adults and young, when present) at the nest site to ensure that they are not disturbed by project -related activities. Nest monitoring shall continue during project - related construction work until the young have fully fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents and have left the nest site, as determined by a biological monitor (CDFW 2018). 9D. Nesting Habitat Removal or Modification No trees or shrubs shall be disturbed that contain active bird nests until all eggs have hatched, and young have fully fledged (are no longer being fed by the adults and have completely left the nest site). To avoid potential impacts to tree or shrub -nesting birds, any trimming or pruning of trees or shrubs shall be conducted during the time period of September 16 to February 14 unless a preconstruction nesting bird survey has been conducted by a qualified biologist. No habitat removal or modification shall occur within the Ecologically Sensitive Area fenced nest zone even if the nest continues to be active beyond the typical nesting season for the species (the fencing must stay up until the young have fully fledged and will no longer be adversely affected by the project (CDFW 2018). Attachment 10 10. Integrated Pest Management All invasive plant and animal removal will be conducted in accordance with Midpen's guidance documents, best management practices, avoidance and minimization measures, and mitigation measures identified in the Midpen Integrated Pest Management Program and EIR, existing permits, and CRLF injunction (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). 10A. Invasive Animal Control No burrow fumigants, insecticides, or rodenticides will be used in habitats where federally listed species may occur. Only herbicides and fungicides that are part of a formal integrated pest management plan may be used, and only if they are used in accordance with the guidelines on the label and if they comply with the restrictions listed in the critical habitat designation and with the laws and regulations of the State of California (USFWS 2016a and 2016b). Eradication of invasive animals (e.g. non-native fish, bullfrogs) by shooting, trapping, or gigging for the purpose of reducing predation on or competition with CRLF, must be authorized in writing by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office prior to conducting removal activities (USFWS 2016a). 10B. Vegetation Management Prior to conducting non-native (e.g., pampas grass) and native (e.g., cattail, cocklebur) plant removal or treatments (e.g., spraying with herbicide or fungicide, cutting, pulling, digging out), the permittee will make every reasonable attempt to ensure that SFGS and CRLF are not hidden within the plant or the residual plant matter to be treated (USFWS 2016b). All vegetation management activities that could result in the runoff of herbicides that are not registered for aquatic use into waters of the State are prohibited (RWQCB 2010). The Discharger shall select and apply herbicides according to the product label directions and uses approved by the U.S. EPA and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and per the CRLF injunction and applicable provisions of this Order (RWQCB 2010). Only herbicides and surfactants registered for aquatic use will be applied to aquatic areas or within the banks of channels. Herbicides will not be applied during or within 24 hours prior to rain (RWQCB 2010). 11. Grazing 11A. Use Grazing for Vegetation Management Livestock will be used for vegetation management to avoid the use of chemical herbicides, to control invasive vegetation, and promote the growth of native vegetation. Where livestock is used in Attachment 10 association with a specific routine maintenance project, vegetation removal will not exceed 2,000 square feet (0.05 acres) in size, 150 adjacent linear feet, or the minimum necessary to complete the operation, whichever is less, and livestock shall be managed and prohibited from creating or worsening existing erosion and sedimentation to flowing stream channels (RWQCB 2010). Avoid seeding with rye grass (unless sterile), "Zorro" fescue, Harding grass, or other non-native aggressive plants after fires to control erosion (Midpen 2014a). 11 B. Use Grazing for Habitat Enhancement Manage native grassland sites to encourage reestablishment and perpetuation of California native grasses (Midpen 2014a). Manage oak woodland to encourage reestablishment and perpetuation of California native oaks (Midpen 2014a). Control invasive non-native plants (Midpen 2014a). Encourage Midpen tenants to use native plants for landscaping to provide natural habitat (Midpen 2014a). Protect and enhance the habitats and populations of special -status plant species (Midpen 2014a). Identify and eliminate barriers (e.g. remove unnecessary fences, old barb wire, and other barriers) and provide safe crossings (e.g. protect established wildlife crossings and use wildlife friendly fencing) to enhance wildlife movement on a regional basis (Midpen 2014a). 11C. Grazing by Horses All domestic livestock production including horses, goats, chickens, pigs, turkeys, etc. should be confined to the Agricultural Lease area. Up to four (4) horses may be kept on the property. Boarding outside horses should be prohibited, and breeding, training, raising and selling horses (Horse Operations) are not considered agricultural uses and are not recommended on the Toto Ranch. Horses should be restricted to the Agricultural Lease area and associated small pastures; horses should not be permitted to graze rangeland pastures outside of the designated Agricultural Lease area. However, horses may be used for cattle operations in rangeland. A separate lease will be prepared for the Agricultural Lease portion of the ranch (Midpen 2014a). Attachment 11 Public Comments received as of 3:00 PM on February 20, 2020 Attachment 11 From: To: Subject: Date: Clerk; General Information All Board Members - Board Contact Form Saturday, February 8, 2020 11:42:06 AM EXTERNAL Name Select a Choice * Email Amy Shimmick All Board Members Location: (i.e. City, Address or District Rocky Creek Road (off Skyline in Woodside) Ward) Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone) Comments: I would like to voice my support for the Markegard family farm's sustainable cattle grazing on open space land. My family has lived on this land since the early 1970's, and remember when grazing cattle kept the hills clear of combustible brush/tall grass. We would feel much safer in this area if there were more cattle keeping us safe. They are an important part of the ecosystem, replacing the grazing herds that no longer take care of this land. The more responsible ranchers we have (or grass managers as they should be known), the more healthy, local meat there is available for our local population. The more carbon is sequestered in the soil, and the healthier our soil. The Markegards are incredibly generous, sharing their methods through farm visits, informative talks and through the reasonable sale of their healthy animal products. I sincerely hope that you continue to support their small family farm operation. Once our small family farms are gone, we lose the knowledge. We become dependent on factory farm produced meat processed in few slaughter houses, leading to greater exposure to disease. This is especially personal to my family. My daughter contracted a near fatal case of ecoli at age 2 and spent a month in the hospital, much of that in a coma. It is the Concentrated Animal Feed Operations that emit green house grasses. It is the CAFO's that feed antibiotics and grain to cattle creating the perfect ecoli storm. Grains cause their systems to have the same acidity as ours. Antibiotics kill off all but anti -biotic resistant strains. Then the meat on the market has anti -biotic resistant bacteria that will not be killed by our stomach acid. Grass fed beef saves lives. Thank you for taking the time to read my email. And thank you for the work you do to preserve the land. Our property is adjacent to the Coal Creek Open Space and we are grateful to you on a daily basis as we walk the trails. Amy Shimmick Attachment 11 From: To: C er c Genera•In ormation Subject: All Board Members - Board Contact Form Date: Monday, February 17, 2020 7:38:34 PM EXTERNAL Name * Select a Choice :. Email Linda Drey-Nightingale All Board Members Location: (i.e. City, Address or District Portola Valley Ward) Comments: TOTO Ranch Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors, I have just learned of some ranker about allowing cattle grazing on Open Space Lands. I would like to give you a different perspective from an long time environmentalist, me. I was never completely in favor of allowing cattle on public lands as I worked for the Forest Service. During that time I saw some of the damage that was done when the concentration was too great or the cattle were not controlled or allowed to go into the creeks unfettered. I was also aware of the erosion that they caused on hillsides. However, I experienced a different picture after I attended two tours on Coyote Ridge Open Space Preserve in south San Jose. During the first tour, I observed the state of the land after it had been grazed for quite a number of years and then acquired by the Santa Clara Open Space Authority. Invasives were everywhere, especially the non-native grasses. Not only was the land covered in invasives, but they were so thick that the native plants barely peaked through. Fast forward several years to my second tour. The land looked completely different and the native wildflower abundance was dramatically improved. What was the difference? Carefully controlled cattle grazing! We saw the cattle in a mobile fenced off area and heard about how they are rotated throughout the area and carefully monitored to make sure that they are moved at the correct time. Outside the fence of the preserve were the masses of non-native plants, and inside the preserve were non -natives cropped down to the ground by the cows and native plants springing up in surprising concentration. After that very visual and dramatic example of what controlled cattle grazing can do, I am now a believer in allowing carefully controlled cattle grazing on public lands. Please consider this side of the issue when making your decision on grazing. Thank you, Linda Drey-Nightingale Portola Valley, CA 94028 Attachment 11 From: To: C er c Genera In ormation Subject: All Board Members - Board Contact Form Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 9:18:01 PM EXTERNAL Name * Renee Cheung Select a Choice ` All Board Members Email Location: (i.e. City, Address or District San Mateo County Ward) Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone) Comments: Dear Midpen Board Members, I am writing in support of Midpen's renewal of the TOTO ranch lease and approval of Markegard Family Grass-fed's cattle grazing plan. For the past decade I have been professionally evaluating livestock farms to assess the environmental benefits of regenerative/conservation grazing. I was also the co-author of the market study, "Back to Grass: the Market Potential for US Grassfed Beef', that covers the environmental, social and human health benefits of grassfed beef production. (You can find the report's Executive Summary on pages 5-7 here: httns.//www.stonebarnscenter.org/wn- content/unloads/201 7/10/Grassfed Full v2.odf) Across the US, South America, Europe and Australia, I have seen first-hand how conservation grazing using cattle, goats and sheep have restored degraded grassland, improved soil quality and reduced the impacts of drought and flooding. This is exactly what the Markegard Family has been doing on the land leased from Midpen. As an environmentalist and resident of San Mateo County, I ask you to continue to lease the land to the Markegard family thus preserving agriculture in the county and keeping our grasslands healthy. Sincerely, Renee Cheung Public Comments received as of 12:20 PM on February 26, 2020 Agenda Item # 4 Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan and Grazing Lease in Tunitas Creek Open Space From: To: Subject: Date: er c Genera•In ormation All Board Members - Board Contact Form Friday, February 21, 2020 8:21:44 AM EXTERNAL Name * Select a Choice :. Email Ellen Cuykendall All Board Members Location: (i.e. City, Address or District San Jose CA 95126 Ward) Comments: Dear Board Members, I strongly support the continued lease of grazing land to the Markegard Family. They are honest, hard working people doing a great service to the mid peninsula by providing humanly raised, nutritional meat that we can feel good about eating. In addition to that, the land stewardship they exhibit is a benefit to our planet since they are faithful followers of regenerative agriculture. These practices create healthy soil, which benefits local plants, animals, non meat eaters, and the environment by providing healthy water, air and increased carbon sequestration. We need more farmers like the Markegard Family in our area to begin to tackle the effects of global warming in a meaningful way. I urge you to continue your support of this grazing on public lands, and look for more opportunities as well. Thank You. Ellen Cuykendall From: To: CJrc Genera In ormation Subject: All Board Members - Board Contact Form Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 8:24:24 AM EXTERNAL Name * Select a Choice * Email * Laura Stec All Board Members Location: (Le. City, Address or District Portola Valley Ward) Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone) Comments: * I support the efforts of the Markegards to continue their use of public lands for grazing. We must assist small farmers with efforts to use our local lands for food production. Thank you for working on this important issue. From: To: Clerk- General Information Subject: All Board Members- Board Contact Form Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 10:27:36 PM EXTERNAL Name" Select a Choice Email * Deborah Rose All Board Members Location: (i.e. City, Address or District Palo Alto Ward) Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone) Comments: I am contacting you in regards to the upcoming lease for total ranch. While I am respectful of the needs and believes of vegans, I have read extensively about how all the lands of the world need to be rehabilitated by the kind of agricultural practices that The Maarkegard family is employing at Toto Ranch. With their activism, their writings, and interactions with the public in many ways including education, they are a role model for how we can actively Participate in restoring our environment in our fight against the pending environmental worldwide disaster. PLEASE RENEW THEIR LEASE. Thank you for your attention. From: To: Clerk- General Information Subject: Yoriko I0shimoto - Ward 2 - Board Contact Form Date: Saturday, February 22, 2020 8:59:48 PM EXTERNAL Name" Select a Choice Email * Ann Duwe Yoriko Kishimoto - Ward 2 Location: (i.e. City, Address or District Los Altos Hills Ward) Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone) Comments: I believe it is vitally important to have local, grass-fed meat and poultry, and the only way to have them is to allow grazing on public as well as private land. I support renewing the Markegard's grazing leases. It is a complicated arrangement, a necessary one to ensure that small family farms survive in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Grazing contributes to healthy soli, which in turn supports the biodiversity on which all of us depend. The Markegards practice regenerative farming, which is different from conventional ranching and worlds away from confined animal feeding operations. The Markegard's farming methods benefit rather than compete with wildlife. If you buy their meat, you can be sure the animals are raised humanely in clean, sustainable surroundings. You can visit Toto Ranch during Ranch Days; you can meet the family and know with certainty where your meat is coming from. You can learn what it takes to operate a ranch. You don't have to eat meat to appreciate the benefits of regenerative farming. Vegans and vegetarians benefit from healthy soil, which contributes to clean air, clean water and greater carbon sequestration. For these and many other reasons, I support MROSD's allowing grazing on public land. Subject: Conservation Grazing - Toto Ranch Property From: Mohan Gurunathan Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 11:41 AM To: Lewis Reed >; Curt Riffle Subject: Re: Follow up from Grazing Meeting ; Kirk Lenington EXTERNAL Hi Lewis, (+Curt, + Kirk) Thank you for your detailed reply. I understand the points you make, however I think there is a valid rebuttal to each of them. Since I am not convinced we will reach an consensus via exchange of emails, I will not systematically argue point by point, but I would just like to summarize my key opinions and my position as a voter and taxpayer. 1. MidPen's livestock grazing does not "protect and preserve the natural environment." A natural environment is an ecosystem that develops naturally, without human control or influence. Livestock are not part of the "natural environment." 2. The fact that there are invasive or non-native species on MidPen land, and that humans were the ones who introduced these species, does not justify a need for humans or livestock to manage them. What is "native" versus "invasive" is a matter of long-term perspective. Ecosystems evolve and change naturally and part of this process involves migration of "invasive" species into regions where they previously did not exist. Species migration may happen due to human influence, or due to seeds being carried by wildlife, birds or air currents. Is it the job of humans to try to revert the ecosystem to what was "native" at some arbitrary point in time? Any "native" species may itself have been an introduced species a thousand years earlier. Therefore I argue it is futile to try to restore an ecosystem to some "native" state, and we are fighting a never-ending battle against nature. It is not our job to create or maintain biodiversity. It is only our job to stop doing harm to the environment. The best thing we can do is to let the land find its own natural equilibrium. 3. Many types of ecosystems which MidPen considers invasive or unwanted, such as coyote brush and chaparral habitat, serve many purposes and species. They provide food and cover for small animals and wildlife use it for various purposes. 4. If Midpen really wants to help endangered species like the red legged frogs and others, there are ways to do it without livestock. For example, water ponds can be added without them having to be for livestock. If grazing herbivores are seen as beneficial, why not re -introduce wild deer or elk to the landscape, instead of cows? 5. Midpen frequently touts a few specific success stories of the red legged frogs and San Francisco garter snake. To understand the true biodiversity picture, we need to also understand what species have been deterred or pushed out by the introduction of livestock. There is ample literature showing that many wild species (both plants and animals) suffer when livestock are introduced. 6. MidPen is not listening to the voices of prominent environmental non -profits such as Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds, Sierra Club, and others, who have argued for the elimination of conservation grazing. Several of these groups met with MidPen in January, yet their concerns have not been seriously considered. MidPen also continues to ignore the taxpayer voices speaking in opposition to grazing at recent Board meetings. 1 7. MidPen continues to underscore the "commitment" they made to ranching communities on the coast. As long as MidPen serves two different mission statements, one of them favoring the environment and the other favoring a for- profit interest (i.e. livestock raising), their scientific credibility is seriously damaged. MidPen is forced to justify the use of livestock to justify their dual mission statement, and they are biased to ignore the many arguments and voices calling for it to stop. The very fact that MidPen is obligated to review their land -management strategy with the Coastal Farm Bureau shows that their decisions are heavily influenced by a for-profit interest. 8. MidPen continues to ignore the methane generation problem of livestock and continues to downplay this as an unimportant issue. Whereas, livestock -generated emissions are one of the most serious causes of the climate crisis. Note: the 700+ page RMP for the Toto Ranch property does not even MENTION methane emissions from livestock as a consideration! It does not matter if it is small-scale or large-scale; all methane emissions are a problem. Methane has a climate -warming potency of 86 TIMES that of CO2 over a 20 year period. MidPen should not knowingly be involved in any activity which accelerates climate change, on any scale. 9. MidPen admits they have many land -management and wildfire management strategies that don't require livestock grazing. MidPen also admits that areas not managed by grazing have an abundance of biodiversity (in your words, they "include a remarkable variety of habitat types such as chaparral, coastal scrub, oak woodland, mixed evergreen forests, redwood forests, and riparian woodlands to list a few. Each of these broad habitat types supports a unique suite of plants and animals that are part of what make California a globally recognized biodiversity hotspot.") Therefore the use of grazing is not required, and is only justified by the "commitment" made to "preserve the agricultural heritage" of ranching communities on the coast. 10. As a voter and taxpayer, I find the alliance and "commitment" between MidPen and livestock producers to be completely unacceptable. I am opposed to a single dollar of my taxes going towards paying for livestock losses, predator deterrence, fencing, or other projects that support livestock raising on MidPen's lands. As I mentioned above, I don't expect we'll reach consensus over email. I would like to ask if you could document my position for the record, and in particular, please record that I am AGAINST the issuance of a 5 -year lease for conservation grazing on the Toto Ranch property. The Toto Ranch RMP does not even mention the issue of livestock methane emissions (though surprisingly it discusses the small amount of methane emissions due to on -site construction!). Considering that MidPen has committed to do a thorough scientific review of the pros/cons of conservation grazing this year, I think it is premature to issue a 5 -year grazing lease until this analysis is complete. request for MidPen to at least defer the lease until the results of the scientific study are available. Furthermore, I ask that the livestock methane emission potential be discussed as an important consideration in any plan where an expansion of grazing is being proposed. Thank you again for the dialogue and for taking my views into consideration. I am sure this discussion will continue in the public forum. Respectfully, Mohan Gurunathan On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:02 PM Lewis Reed wrote: Hi Mohan, Thank you again for your interest in stewardship at the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen). I have attempted to address the general concerns you've raised in the following paragraphs and your specific questions at the end. 2 It is important to keep in mind that all land management approaches —including doing nothing- can have negative consequences for our environment. In the case of our grasslands, which support a disproportionately large number of rare or sensitive species for our area, we are dealing with a highly altered ecosystem. Rare and sensitive species are the organisms in our environment that are most vulnerable to extinction —the permanent loss of species which erodes our ecological integrity. I emphasize the significance of extinction here because in past conversations you seem to make light of the risk of losing critical habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species as a result of changing resource management practices such as removing conservation grazing. One of the biggest challenges in protecting native biodiversity in our grasslands is the ever-present threat of invasive exotic plant species — particularly exotic grasses. Many of these problematic grasses were introduced into California grasslands at the time of European contact and settlement and quickly expanded throughout the State's habitats. Simply removing humans or human uses from landscapes will not curtail the negative effects of these invasive species. In fact, the 'do nothing approach' could lead directly to the loss of biodiversity. More and more we are learning that we can manage grazing in ways that moderate the competitive effects of invasive species on native flora and influence the physical structure of these habitats in ways that can be favorable for a wide variety of native wildlife. The goals of our resource management activities, including the conservation grazing program, are neither arbitrary nor driven simply by aesthetic as your inquiry has insinuated. Rather, they are specifically aimed at preserving the unique biodiversity that we are responsible for as stewards of District lands and meeting our coastal mission to encourage viable agricultural use of land resources. Many of these species are threatened elsewhere, or throughout their range, or in some cases are found almost nowhere else on earth. One unfortunate shortcoming of the hands-off approach to land management that you are advocating is that the lands we are talking about are already highly fragmented and altered by human activities. With the presence of a multitude of invasive exotic species, extirpation of several locally important species, extinction of numerous species that were present in the evolutionary history of our contemporary native flora and fauna, and the constraints of continuing urbanization; we cannot recuse ourselves of responsibility and expect our native species to simply recover on their own. Our challenge as stewards of one of the worlds biodiversity hotspots is to make decisions that allow us to sustain what we have left of this remarkable natural heritage — despite all the larger scale changes we have already made. Where we do and do not use conservation grazing depends on a wide variety of factors. Some of the things we consider include: Are there native species or habitats on a site that will benefit from conservation grazing? Are there sensitive resources that could be harmed from the use of conservation grazing and how could we protect them if we do use grazing? Is there infrastructure to support conservation grazing practices? For the most part, grazing is valuable as a management tool for species that occur in some of our grasslands. There are large areas of the Midpen that are comprised of other habitat types (chaparral, mixed evergreen woodland, redwood forest to name a few broad categories) where there probably wouldn't be much conservation benefit from grazing. With respect to fencing, I have seen no evidence that fencing is limiting or threatening to wildlife on District preserves under conservation grazing management. Even the older standard barbed wire fencing (which is being phased out in favor of more intentionally wildlife friendly designs) seems to impose little obstruction to wildlife on District lands. I do recall that one of the sources you provided in your previous e-mail cited collisions with fencing as a source of mortality for sage grouse. Sage grouse are large ground nesting birds with distinctive behavior that may render them particularly vulnerable to injury or mortality from collisions with fencing. They also don't occur on Midpen lands nor generally west of the Sierra in California. On the other hand, numerous ground dwelling bird species that are native to our area benefit from the environment created under conservation grazing management including western burrowing owl, grasshopper sparrow, and horned lark to name a few. One of the highest densities of grasshopper sparrows in our region for example (a Species of Special Concern in California), exists on grasslands in the District's conservation grazing program. I also don't know of any wildlife species that are limited on District lands by forage competition with livestock. This is in part because we don't have any other large grazing animals in our landscape (deer for example are largely browsers — preferring forbs and the shoots of shrubs and trees over grasses) but also because the ever-present exotic annual grasses create a surplus of biomass most years. This accumulation of biomass is a major factor limiting native flora, it 3 impacts the physical structure of habitat for numerous grassland animals, and if unmanaged, it accumulates as standing dead litter (thatch) that ultimately limits the net primary productivity (the ability to perform photosynthesis, produce forage, capture carbon, or perform any of the other functions that live, actively growing plant tissue provides) of the grasslands themselves and it becomes a fire hazard. As a point of clarification, the District has no general commitment to the global livestock industry and actually has a rather minimal involvement with the livestock industry as a whole. Within our coastal service area, we do have a commitment to protecting local agricultural heritage. This commitment arose from the voicing of voters and taxpayers of that area who, in the late 90's and early 2000's, expressed an interest in having the District expand its work of protecting open spaces to the coast including protecting agricultural lands. This expansion has allowed the Midpen to protect approximately 11,000 acres of coastal habitats from the threat of subdivision and development. While the impact of global methane emissions from livestock is a serious concern, it is important to temper that concern with the relatively small scale of livestock operations in our area and the numerous ecological benefits of conservation grazing. Eliminating livestock grazing from District lands would do relatively little to effect climate change but would likely have immediate and long-term deleterious consequences for numerous species that rely on our grasslands for habitat — again, many of which are found almost nowhere else on earth. Given the habitat value of lands under our conservation grazing program I would say this management is complimentary to the Districts original mission not conflicting with it as you have suggested. I also believe we can have a much greater effect on regional conservation if we work collaboratively with our local ranching and agricultural community rather than excluding or alienating them. Here are responses to your more specific questions: 1. Are there coastal lands that are not being managed with livestock grazing? If so, what is the area of this land, and how is it managed (if at all)? There are approximately 5,000 acres of District land within the coastal service area that are not managed with conservation grazing (out of approximately 11,000 acres total District land in the coastal service area). Much of the management in these areas falls within our Integrated Pest Management Program which you can read about here but also includes a variety of other restoration or habitat enhancement efforts on a case -by -case basis. For example, last year district staff, contractors, and volunteers spent over 10,000 hours manually removing invasive exotic plant species such as French broom from District lands. Other management activities have included things like structural habitat enhancement for native salmonids in San Gregorio Creek, watershed -scale efforts to reduce sedimentation in El Corte de Madera Creek Preserve by decommissioning and or redesigning trails and roads, and restoration of native grassland species on highly degraded non -grazed grasslands sites at Russian Ridge open space preserve. 2. How does MidPen mitigate the threat of wildfire on the 55,000+ acres that do not have livestock grazing? Midpen undertakes several actions and activities on our lands to prepare for fire season. The actions related to fuel maintenance and reduction and fire management include: • Maintaining existing fuelbreaks in Open Space Preserves along the wildland-urban interface (WUI), including but not limited to Pulgas Ridge, Windy Hill, Sierra Azul, Saratoga Gap, and Monte Bello OSPs; • Defensible space clearing around 117 Midpen-owned structures; • Maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads; and • Implementing over 8,500 acres of conservation grazing, in part to manage fuels. Midpen's Integrated Pest Management Program (IPMP), adopted in 2014 with an addendum certified and adopted in January 2019, prescribes pest management activities on Midpen lands over a 10 -year period covering five major categories of work, including vegetation management. Vegetation management prescriptions address vegetation management within the WUI and around structures to reduce the potential rates of spread, and intensity and flame lengths of wildland fires, within treated areas. This includes the spread of wildland fires that originate in and around 4 buildings. This work is accomplished primarily through mechanical means, using handheld power tools or heavy equipment. District preserves themselves have very little risk of ignitions, given the lack of human activity that typically spark fires. The District does not allow activities typically associated with fire ignitions; smoking, campfires, and off -road vehicles are prohibited. However, to reduce possibility of any ignitions, the District employs a number of prevention measures such as reducing fuels in critical ignition areas (e.g., parking areas, picnic facilities, and other sites with an ignition risk). Staff or contractors must monitor the weather and have a water source, fire extinguishers or hand tools onsite during fire season if their activities have the potential for creating sparks or ignitions, and construction and maintenance activities that could potentially spark a fire are stopped when weather conditions warrant. The District also facilitates utility company access to electric transmission and distribution lines for the purpose of cyclical fuels management and maintenance of these lines and poles to prevent accidental ignitions. The District has staff trained in wildland firefighting who are equipped with wildland fire gear and pumper trucks for initial response. Additional staff, Biologists with fire training, are Resource Advisors to help fire responders avoid impacts to sensitive resources. 3. How would you characterize the biodiversity of District lands where grazing is not used as a management technique? Like the grasslands in our conservation grazing program, the District lands outside of our conservation grazing program are quite diverse. These include a remarkable variety of habitat types such as chaparral, coastal scrub, oak woodland, mixed evergreen forests, redwood forests, and riparian woodlands to list a few. Each of these broad habitat types supports a unique suite of plants and animals that are part of what make California a globally recognized biodiversity hotspot. As described above, it is important to recognize that conservation grazing is only one of a wide variety of management approaches that the District employs to steward the unique biodiversity and resources of our lands. Determining which techniques are appropriate for a given scenario is very site specific and context dependent. In addition to the references I provided in our previous e-mail exchange, I'd recommend three more references (below). These standard texts may help you build a better basic understanding of California's ecosystems and our contemporary resource management challenges and strategies. You should be able to access these through your local library or through inter -library loan. I have found used copies relatively inexpensive online. 1) Mooney, H. & Zavaleta, E.A. 2016. Ecosystems of California. University of California Press. Oakland, CA. 2) Barbour, M.G., Keeler -Wolf, T., & Schoenherr, A.A. 2007. Terrestrial Vegetation of California (3rd ed.) University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 3) Stromberg, M.R., Corbin, J.D., D'Antonio, C.M. 2007. California Grasslands: Ecology & Management. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. I hope this dialogue is helping you better understand the unique ecology of our area and the work Midpen is doing to protect it on behalf of all of us. We have a lot of important work to do and appreciate the support of concerned citizens such as yourself. Sincerely, Lewis Reed Rangeland Ecologist/Botanist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 5 February 25, 2020 Board of Directors, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lewis Reed, Lewis Reed, Rangeland Ecologist/Botanist Omar Smith, Senior Property Management Specialist 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Sent Via Email: RE: Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan and Grazing Lease in Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve (R-20-09) Dear Misters Reed and Smith, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District management and Board of Directors, We submit these comments responding to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (hereinafter Midpen) proposed Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan and Grazing Lease in Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve (R-20-09) herein referred to as the proposed RMP. On February 21, 2020 we were first made aware of the proposed RMP after receiving the Midpen email regarding the February 26, 2020 Board of Directors meeting. We are unable to determine when the public comment period began on this proposed RMP. I, Deniz Bolbol, previously requested that Midpen add me to all interested -party contact lists relating to livestock grazing on Midpen-managed lands. I never received any notification. Because this proposed RMP has not been adopted and due to the public opposition, we urge the Board and Midpen staff to remove Agenda Item #4 from the agenda in order to address the public comments. We strongly oppose the proposed RMP as it fails to adequately address important environmental concerns that result from the proposed actions. We request Midpen allow the public an opportunity to provide meaningful comments on this RMP through a public comments review process. Additionally, we strongly oppose the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Midpen must conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) given the significant impacts that livestock grazing — at any level — has on the natural environment. The EIR must consider cumulative environmental impacts of all Midpen actions regarding livestock grazing. 1. BACKGROUND The proposed RMP is to govern, for a five-year period, the private -commercial use of specific properties purchased and managed by Midpen with tax dollars. In 1972, voters in Santa Clara County passed Measure R establishing Midpen as a government agency. Voters were told that the purpose of the district is "to acquire land primarily in the foothills and baylands area of the district for open space and recreational uses...parks, playgrounds, trails, parkways and other recreational facilities..." Toto Ranch RMP comments, February 25, 2020 Page 2 In 1976, voters in San Mateo County passed Proposition D the "San Mateo County Annexation," which mirrored Measure R's original language, to be added to the Midpen district. Proposition D states it, "will preserve open space in its natural state as "room to breathe" in our hills and baylands." It further states, "District lands will be held primarily as open space with light recreational use." Based on the two voter -approved purposes the Midpen mission is "To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity, protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education." In or around 2004, the Midpen Board of Directors voted to annex portions of San Mateo County along the coast. Since that time, the Midpen Board of Directors added a second -tier mission statement that supposedly only applies to coastal properties. The second -tier mission statement is "To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education." Voter approval was never granted to change the scope of the mission of Midpen. In taking the unilateral action, without voter approval, the Midpen Board of Directors changed the scope of the mission thus departing from the voter - approved management mission "to protect and restore the natural environment" which had been in place for decades. It is our understanding that elected officials may not amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting the change to voters unless the change furthers the purpose of the initiative. The initiatives passed by the voters creating and expanding Midpen were very specific in location and purpose. The Midpen Board of Directors entered into a for-profit business model by converting public lands, which voters had established would be protected and restored to the natural environment, and creating a private -corporate interest on the public lands managed by Midpen. Creating a livestock operation, which Midpen spends tax dollars to support, is a stark departure from the voter -approved purpose to acquire property "to protect and restore the natural environment..." as outlined in the agency's mission statement. II. OVERVIEW The Toto Ranch RMP fails to adequately analyze the impacts of livestock grazing to the natural environment and fails to consider alternatives to mitigate those impacts. I, Deniz Bolbol, previously requested that Midpen notify me of all livestock grazing related actions. The only notification I received on this proposed RMP was the Midpen Board of Directors meeting agenda which I received via email on February 21, 2020. Toto Ranch RMP comments, February 25, 2020 Page 3 The Proposed RMP has failed to consider significant and potentially substantial impacts affected by the proposed action to allow livestock grazing on Toto Ranch. While the existence of public controversy over the environment effects of a project will not require preparation of an EIR, substantial evidence before the agency that indicates the project may have a significant effect on the environment mandates an EIR. Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Midpen has failed to conduct thorough analysis and has proposed a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) which is in adequate for the proposed livestock grazing. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) incorporates revisions (mitigation measures) in the proposed project that will avoid or mitigate impacts to a point where clearly no significant impacts on the environment would occur. The lead agency shall provide a public review period of not less than 20 days for Mitigated Negative Declarations. 14 CCR § 15073 We, along with other interested parties, have not been notified of the public review period for the Toto Ranch RMP. We, along with other interested parties, wish to have time to review the proposed RMP and provide meaningful input. The proposed RMP does not meet the criteria for an MND. "Significant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. 14 CCR § 15382. Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Sections 21068, 21083, 21100 and 21151, Public Resources Code; Hecton v. People of the State of California, 58 Cal. App. 3d 653. If the project may cause significant adverse environmental impacts, the lead agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed Toto Ranch RMP clearly outlines actions that will, or at minimum may, have significant adverse environmental impacts. Yet, Midpen has failed to consider alternative actions to mitigate the issues identified for justifying livestock grazing. Some of those adverse environmental impacts from livestock grazing and the management of livestock grazing are outlined below. III. PROPOSED RMP FAILS TO ANALYZE COMPLETE DATA AND IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTIONS The Proposed RMP fails to adequately address disclose or analyze impacts of: Toto Ranch RMP comments, February 25, 2020 Page 4 • fencing (wildlife -friendlier and other) on wildlife, including but not limited to ground dwelling birds and other animals, impacts of "wildlife -friendlier" fencing on wildlife range usage patterns, etc. • diverting water from streams, creeks and other water sources and the wildlife who rely on those water source in order to accommodate livestock usage (amounts of water, impacts to water tables, streams, creeds, etc.), • livestock presence on wildlife habitat and wildlife, • livestock presence on predators (illegal and legal killing of predators), • all costs to tax payers for purchasing lands, managing livestock grazing (including staff time) and subsidies to the livestock industry including data and analysis conducted to establish the Midpen AUM rate, • production of greenhouse gases, including methane, from livestock grazing • water quality impacts from livestock grazing -- both on site and downstream, • other pertinent issues pertaining to livestock grazing and public input on this highly controversial issue of livestock grazing on public lands. If livestock grazing were to end on the Toto Ranch property, fencing would no longer be needed and as the area would be solely devoted to and managed as wildlife habitat. Fencing could be removed and the landscape could be united as one contiguous area as wildlife habitat. In addition to the above -mentioned impacts, Midpen must disclose and analyze the short- and long-term cumulative impacts of the proposed RMP; Midpen allows livestock grazing on this parcel and 8 additional parcels, which Midpen states represents 40% of the coastal grazing lands, and must disclosure and consider the cumulative impacts resulting from all livestock grazing on Midpen-managed public lands. Fencing The proposed RMP fails to consider and analyze the impact that fencing (wildlife friend or not) has on wildlife — including ground -dwelling animals. Fences provide elevated hunting perches for avian predators at locations where none were historically observed. When fences are erected through intact natural habitats, they can extend the reach of avian predators into the bisected habitat. Fencing and habitat issues that threaten various species of grouse also apply to their smaller cousins, the quail. Members of the quail family are mostly non -migratory, ground -dwelling birds. Most inhabit early - successional brushy areas. Cover is needed for California Quail to roost, rest, nest, escape from predators, and for protection from the weather (Sumner 1935, Leopold 1977). Fencing lands for livestock increases the threat from avian predators. The RMP fails to consider that wildlife interactions with fences can be direct (physical) or indirect (behavioral), and lead to positive or negative consequences. The RMP fails to consider any negative impacts of fencing. Fencing can be used to limit disease transmission by separating wildlife and livestock (Ver Cauteren et al.,2007; Lavelle et al., 2010). The rate of wildlife mortality and injury as a result of direct contact with fences is largely unknown because most cases go unreported or unnoticed. Indirect effects of fences on wildlife manifest themselves as changes in behavior and biology. Many of these indirect effects are difficult to observe, quantify, and fully evaluate. Additionally, fencing — wildlife -friendlier or not — can cause wildlife to run into the fencing causing either injury or death or behavioral changes. (Attachment 2) Toto Ranch RMP comments, February 25, 2020 Page 5 While "wildlife -friendlier" fencing is supposed to be utilized, barbed wire and other fencing continue to be in use and lack of replacement has direct negative impacts on wildlife. The proposed RMP fails to analyze important issues relating to environmental impact due to fencing and failed to consider removing livestock grazing in order to mitigate the need for the majority of fencing. Livestock Grazing Impacts to Water Sources Grazing animals and pasture production can negatively affect water quality through erosion and sediment transport into surface waters, through nutrients from urine and feces dropped by the animals and fertility practices associated with production of high - quality pasture, and through pathogens from the wastes.' The effect of grazing animals on soil and water quality must be evaluated at both the field and watershed scales. Such evaluation must account for both direct input of animal wastes from the grazing animal and also applications of inorganic fertilizers to produce quality pastures. (Attachments 3, 4) The proposed RMP fails to analyze important issues relating to environmental impact due to water usage for livestock and failed to consider removing livestock grazing in order to mitigate the need for diverting water for livestock use and the impact of livestock on water sources. Adverse Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Native Wildlife Livestock grazing can have direct and indirect impacts on wildlife. Direct impacts include the removal and/or trampling of vegetation that would otherwise be used for food and cover, and livestock -wildlife interactions that may result in wildlife displacement or disease transmission. The pattern of use by livestock and the resulting increase or decrease in community diversity will depend upon the terrain (broken, flat, mixed) and availability of water in the area. While uniform use may be desirable from the standpoint of maximizing livestock production, it is generally undesirable to wildlife because of reduced habitat diversity, reduction of heavy escape cover, and greater interaction between domestic and wild species (Brown 1978; Mackie 1978). Indirect impacts result from changes in vegetation due to livestock grazing. The diets of wild ungulates may decline in nutritive value as they are forced to be less selective when cattle grazing reduces plant diversity and causes a decline in range condition (Holechek et al. 1995). The continued heavy grazing or browsing by only one species tends to cause a trend away from one vegetation type to another type. The proposed RMP fails to take a hard look at the following wildlife conflicts with livestock grazing and failed to consider ending livestock grazing in order to mitigate these impacts: • reduced nest sites for ground -dwelling birds and wildlife 1 Hubbard RK1, Newton GL, Hill GM., Water quality and the grazing animal. J Anim Sci. 2004;82 E-Suppl:E255-263. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15471806 Toto Ranch RMP comments, February 25, 2020 Page 6 • decreased water quality • trampled nests for ground -dwelling birds and wildlife • disturbance to wildlife during fawning seasons • reduced cover that permits wildlife to hide from predators • reduced biomass of desirable wildlife forage • increased noxious weed populations • decreased vegetative diversity for bird, mammal, and insect communities • potential spread of parasites or disease Adverse Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Native Predators The Midpen "FACT SHEET: Mountain Lions" outlines that these predators have territories of up to100 square miles. The Fact Sheet also acknowledges that mountain lions rely on brush and other environmental conditions in order to successfully hunt. Ironically, the Midpen Fact Sheet recommends "Keep livestock in enclosed sheds and barns at night, and be sure to secure all outbuildings." Yet, Midpen has not implemented this on the public lands it manages. This is the primary action that is needed to prevent predator conflict with livestock grazing. The proposed RMP refused to even consider this rational and reasonable management mechanism needed to protect predators and livestock. Instead, Midpen is considering killing predators or compensating ranchers for livestock loss due to predators instead of ensuring the public lands rancher is implements a safe operation for his/her livestock. Not requiring ranchers to keep livestock in enclosed barns at night is irresponsible and inevitably creates wildlife conflict with livestock grazing. The proposed RMP fails to analyze important issues relating to the real and potential impact to livestock grazing on predators and failed to consider removing livestock in order to mitigate these real and potential impacts to predators. Costs of Livestock Grazing As per the proposed RMP: $5,000 per year2 for 632 AUMs3 - approximately $7.91 per AUM. The Midpen rate is far below the Western state average of $23.40 per AUM. The Congressional Research Service, March 4, 2019, Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues report (Attachment 1) states, "For grazing on private lands in 2017, the average monthly lease rate for lands in 16 western states was $23.40 per head. Fees ranged from $11.50 in Oklahoma to $39.00 in Nebraska..."Assuming grazing in the Bay Area is not less expensive than grazing in Nebraska, the local rate may be significantly higher than the western state average. 2 Over the last two grazing seasons, this Lease has provided an average annual grazing rent per season of $4,695.00. The Lessee will continue to pay an annual grazing rent to the District estimated at $5,000.00 per year. Annual grazing rent can vary depending upon the average selling price of beef cattle as well as the quantity and age of the conservation cattle grazing on the property. 3 The estimated stocking rate for an average forage production year is 632.0 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) or 53.0 animal units year round, but would significantly increase with a reduction in coyote brush in the grasslands. (RMP, page 5) Toto Ranch RMP comments, February 25, 2020 Page 7 Based on the CRS estimated western state average rate of $23.40 per AUM and the Midpen Toto Ranch rate of $7.91 per AUM — the difference is $15.49 per AUM. Midpen is charging only 1/3 of the CSR -determined going rate to graze livestock. Midpen's subsidy of the livestock industry is not disclosed or analyzed in the proposed RMP and is not in the best interest of the taxpaying citizens who fund the District. IV. CLOSING COMMENTS The following issues have a direct impact on the proposed actions and the proposed RMP fails to take a hard look at these important actions, fails to consider alternative actions to address environmental issues raised by livestock grazing and failed to disclose and consider the short- and long-term cumulative impacts of livestock grazing on Midpen-managed public lands. Midpen should conduct an EIR that includes analysis on the following and other pertinent issues raised: 1. Analyze how proposed grazing use may conflict with wildlife needs for habitat and other resources. 2. Provide and analyze any baseline data or understanding on how livestock presence may drive off native species, including but not limited to listing all predator conflicts that have occurred in the broader area (mountain lion territory range averages 100 square miles). 3. Analyze all fencing in relationship to water sources, wildlife movement and other intended or unintended impacts. 4. Test, analyze and disclose all water sources in the vicinity of the proposed livestock grazing. Analysis must include testing of ground water table, upstream and downstream water samples, impacts of livestock water usage on wildlife species, full disclosure of all water sources managed or controlled, etc. 5. Disclose and analyze data on the wildlife usage of Toto Ranch — number of predator encounters and deaths, wildlife (including bird) usage and deaths, wildlife migratory patterns, etc. 6. Specific analysis and disclosure of ground -dwelling bird species and other native animals on the proposed site — historic numbers and current numbers. Midpen must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and must address the issues identified herein. The draft EIR must provide supporting data to support its proposed actions for the Toto Ranch RMP. As interested parties, we request that Midpen conduct the necessary EIR and associated public comment period for the Toto Ranch and all livestock grazing leases. Midpen must conduct the above requested analysis of new data in order to consider the impacts the proposed actions will have on wildlife, water sources, natural habitat, and the local citizens who voted to "protect and preserve the natural environment." Thank you for your consideration. Deniz Bolbol Kathleen Yoon San Mateo, CA Los Altos, CA Email: Email: Toto Ranch RMP comments, February 25, 2020 Page 8 Attachments: 1. Congressional Research Service, March 4, 2019, Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues 2. Jakes, A.F., Jones, P.F., et al, A fence runs through it: A call for greater attention to the influence of fences on wildlife and ecosystems, Biological Conservation 227 (2018) 310-318 3. Hubbard RK, Newton GL, Hill GM., Water quality and the grazing animal. J Anim Sci. 2004;82 E-Suppl:E255-263. 4. Roche LM, Kromschroeder L, Atwill ER, Dahlgren RA, Tate KW (2013) Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation on National Forest Lands. PLoS ONE 8(6): e68127. ATTACHMENT 1 Congressional I Research Service Informing the legislative debate since 1914 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues Updated March 4, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS21232 CRS REPORT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues Summary Charging fees for grazing private livestock on federal lands is a long-standing but contentious practice. Generally, livestock producers who use federal lands want to keep fees low, whereas conservation groups believe fees should be increased. The current formula for determining the grazing fee for lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS) was established in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA) and continued by a 1986 executive order issued by President Reagan. The fee is based on grazing of a specified number of animals for one month, known as an animal unit month (AUM). The fee is set annually under a formula that uses a base value per AUM. The base value is adjusted by three factors —the lease rates for grazing on private lands, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. For 2019, BLM and FS are charging a grazing fee of $1.35 per AUM. This fee is in effect from March 1, 2019, through February 29, 2020, and is the minimum allowed. Since 1981, when BLM and FS began charging the same grazing fee, the fee has ranged from $1.35 per AUM (for about half the years) to $2.31 per AUM (for 1981). The average fee during the period was $1.55 per AUM. In recent decades, grazing fee reform has occasionally been considered by Congress or proposed by the President, but no fee changes have been adopted. The grazing fees collected by each agency essentially are divided between the agency, Treasury, and states/localities. The agency portion is deposited in a range betterment fund in the Treasury and is subject to appropriation by Congress. The agencies use these funds for on -the -ground activities, such as range rehabilitation and fence construction. Under law, BLM and FS allocate the remaining collections differently between the Treasury and states/localities. Issues for Congress include whether to retain the current grazing fee or alter the charges for grazing on federal lands. The current BLM and FS grazing fee is generally lower than fees charged for grazing on state and private lands. Comparing the BLM and FS fee with state and private fees is complicated, due to factors including the purposes for which fees are charged, the quality of the resources on the lands being grazed, and whether the federal grazing fee alone or other non -fee costs are considered. Unauthorized grazing occurs on BLM and FS lands in a variety of ways, including when cattle graze outside the allowed areas or seasons or in larger numbers than allowed under permit. In some cases, livestock owners have intentionally grazed cattle on federal land without getting a permit or paying the required fee. The agencies have responded at times by fining the owners, as well as by impounding and selling the trespassing cattle. BLM continues to seek a judicial resolution to a long-standing controversy involving cattle grazed by Cliven Bundy on lands in Nevada. There have been efforts to end livestock grazing in specific areas through voluntary retirement of permits and leases and subsequent closure of the allotments to grazing. Congress has enacted some such proposals. Congress also has considered measures to reduce or end grazing in specified states or to allow a maximum number of permits to be waived yearly. Among other reasons, such measures have been supported to protect range resources but opposed as diminishing ranching operations. Another issue involves expiring grazing permits. Both BLM and FS have a backlog of permits needing evaluation for renewal. To allow for continuity in grazing operations, P.L. 113-291 made permanent the automatic renewal (until the evaluation process is complete) of permits and leases that expire or are transferred. The law provided that the issuance of a grazing permit "may" be categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) under certain conditions. NEPA categorical exclusions have been controversial. Congressional Research Service ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues Contents Introduction 1 Current Grazing Fee Formula and Distribution of Receipts 3 The Fee Formula 3 Distribution of Receipts 4 History of Fee Evaluation and Reform Attempts 6 Current Issues 7 Fee Level 7 State and Private Grazing Fees 8 Grazing Without Paying Fees 9 Voluntary Permit Retirement 10 Extension of Expiring Permits 11 Figures Figure 1. Distribution of Forest Service Grazing Fees 5 Figure 2. Distribution of BLM Grazing Fees: Section 3 6 Figure 3. Distribution of BLM Grazing Fees: Section 15 6 Tables Table 1. Grazing Fees from 1981 to 2019 3 Contacts Author Information 12 Congressional Research Service ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues Introduction Charging fees for grazing private livestock on federal lands is statutorily authorized and has been the policy of the Forest Service (FS, Department of Agriculture) since 1906, and of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, Department of the Interior) since 1936. Today, fees are charged for grazing on BLM and FS land basically under a fee formula established in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA) and continued administratively) BLM manages a total of 245.7 million acres, primarily in the West. Of total BLM land, 154.1 million acres were available for livestock grazing in FY2017.2 The acreage used for grazing during 2017 was 138.7 million acres.' FS manages a total of 192.9 million acres. Although this land is predominantly in the West, FS manages more than half of all federal lands in the East.4 Of total FS land, more than 93 million acres were available for grazing in FY2017, with 74 million used for livestock grazing.5 For both agencies, the acreage available for livestock grazing reflects lands within grazing allotments. However, the acreage in those allotments that is capable of forage production is substantially less, according to the FS, because some lands lack forage (e.g., are forested or contain rockfalls). In addition, for both agencies, acreage used for grazing is less than the acreage available due to voluntary nonuse for economic reasons, resource protection needs, and forage depletion caused by drought or fire, among other reasons. Because BLM and FS are multiple -use agencies, lands available for livestock grazing generally are also available for other purposes. On BLM rangelands, in FY2017, there were 16,357 operators authorized to graze livestock, and they held 17,886 grazing permits and leases.6 Under these permits and leases, a maximum of 12,333,568 animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing potentially could have been authorized for use. Instead, 8,820,617 AUMs were authorized for use.' BLM defines an AUM, for fee purposes, 1 P.L. 95-514, 92 Stat. 1803; 43 U.S.C. §§1901, 1905. Executive Order 12548, 51 Fed. Reg. 5985 (February 19, 1986), at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12548.html. These authorities govern grazing on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS) lands in 16 contiguous western states, which are the focus of this report. These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Forest Service grasslands and "nonwestern" states have different fees. In addition, grazing occurs on some other federal lands, not required to be governed by PRIA fees, including certain areas managed by the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, and Department of Energy. 2 This figure was provided to CRS by BLM on December 10, 2018. It reflects BLM acreage within grazing allotments during FY2017. 3 This figure was provided to CRS by BLM on December 10, 2018. It is an estimate of the acreage within BLM allotments for which BLM billed grazing permit and lease holders. 4East is used here to refer to all states except the following 12 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. For more information on federal land ownership by state, see CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Laura A. Hanson, and Carla N. Argueta. 5 These figures were provided to CRS by FS on November 30, 2018. Nearly all of this acreage is in the 16 western states covered by this report. The acreage used for livestock grazing (74 million) reflects FS acreage in active allotments. Additional acres under other ownerships also were in active allotments. Active means that livestock use was permitted during the year. 6 BLM uses both permits and leases to authorize grazing. Permits are used for lands within grazing districts (under Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. §315b). Leases are used for lands outside grazing districts (under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. §315m). 7 Statistics in this paragraph were taken from U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), BLM, Public Land Statistics, 2017, Table 3-8c and Table 3-9c, at https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/PublicLandStatistics2017. The numbers of operators and animal unit months (AUMs) used are reported as of September 30, 2017, and the number of permits and Congressional Research Service 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues as a month's use and occupancy of the range by one animal unit, which includes one yearling, one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats.8 On FS rangelands, in FY2017, there were 5,725 permit holders permitted (i.e., allowed) to graze commercial livestock, with a total of 6,146 active permits. A maximum of 8,238,429 head -months (HD -MOs) of grazing were under permit and thus potentially could have been authorized for use. Instead, 6,803,425 HD -MOs were authorized for use.9 FS uses HD -MO as its unit of measurement for use and occupancy of FS lands. This measurement is nearly identical to AUM as used by BLM for fee purposes. 1° Hereinafter, AUMis used to cover both HD -MO and AUM. BLM and FS are charging a 2019 grazing fee of $1.35 per AUM. This annual fee is in effect from March 1, 2019, through February 29, 2020. This is the minimum fee allowed. (See "The Fee Formula" section, below.) BLM and FS typically spend more managing their grazing programs than they collect in grazing fees." For example, $79.0 million was appropriated to BLM for rangeland management in FY2017. Of that amount, $32.4 million was used for administration of livestock grazing, according to the agency. The remainder was used for other range activities, including weed management, habitat improvement, and water development. For the same fiscal year, BLM collected $18.3 million in grazing fees.'2 The FY2017 appropriation for FS for grazing management was $56.9 million. The funds are used primarily for grazing permit administration and planning.13 FS collected $7.6 million in grazing fees during FY2017.14 leases and maximum AUMs are reported as of January 3, 2018. 8 Specifically, BLM regulations at 43 C.F.R. §4130.8-1 provide that in general, "[f]or the purposes of calculating the fee, an animal unit month is defined as a month's use and occupancy of range by 1 cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, mule, 5 sheep, or 5 goats: (1) Over the age of 6 months at the time of entering the public lands or other lands administered by BLM; (2) Weaned regardless of age; or (3) Becoming 12 months of age during the authorized period of use." 9 Statistics in this paragraph were provided to CRS by FS on November 30, 2018. 10 Specifically, FS regulations at 36 C.F.R. §222.50 provide that "[a] grazing fee shall be charged for each head month of livestock grazing or use. A head month is a month's use and occupancy of range by one animal, except for sheep or goats. A full head month's fee is charged for a month of grazing by adult animals; if the grazing animal is weaned or 6 months of age or older at the time of entering National Forest System lands; or will become 12 months of age during the permitted period of use. For fee purposes 5 sheep or goats, weaned or adult, are equivalent to one cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, or mule." 11 Past estimates of the cost of livestock grazing have varied considerably for a number of reasons, including the following. Some estimates might reflect the entirety of BLM and FS appropriations for rangeland management, whereas others might reflect the subset of these appropriations for administration of livestock grazing. Another variable is whether the estimates reflect any indirect costs to the federal government of livestock grazing, such as programs that might benefit livestock grazing or compensate for impacts of livestock grazing, or indirect costs to ranchers, such as for maintenance of fences and water sources. A 2015 study by the Center for Biological Diversity identifies BLM, FS, and other federal programs that might fund indirect costs of livestock grazing. The study also identifies potential nonfederal costs, such as at the state or local level. The study, entitled Costs and Consequences: The Real Price of Grazing on America's Public Lands," 2015, is available at https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/ pdfs/CostsAndConsequences_01-2015.pdf. Another 2015 assessment, by the Public Lands Council, identifies the costs to ranchers of grazing on federal lands in addition to the grazing fee. See Public Lands Council, The Value of Ranching, 2015, at http://publiclandscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ValueofRanching_Onesheet-l.pdf. 12 The amount used for livestock grazing administration versus other rangeland management activities and the amount of fees collected were provided to CRS by BLM on December 10, 2018. 13 The FS appropriation for grazing management was taken from appropriations documents. Other FS appropriations also support livestock grazing but are not separately identifiable. For instance, appropriations for vegetation and watershed management, within the National Forest System account, have been used for range improvements, restoration, and invasive species management. A total of $184.7 million was appropriated for vegetation and watershed management in FY2017, but the portion for activities that benefitted livestock grazing is not identifiable. 14 The amount of grazing fees was taken from appropriations documents. Congressional Research Service 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues Grazing fees have been contentious since their introduction. Generally, livestock producers who use federal lands want to keep fees low. They assert that federal fees are not comparable to fees for leasing private rangelands because public lands often are less productive; must be shared with other public users; and often lack water, fencing, or other amenities, thereby increasing operating costs. They fear that fee increases may force many small and medium-sized ranchers out of business. Conservation groups generally assert that low fees contribute to overgrazing and deteriorated range conditions. Critics assert that low fees subsidize ranchers and contribute to budget shortfalls because federal fees are lower than private grazing land lease rates and do not cover the costs of range management. They further contend that, because some of the collected fees are used for range improvements, higher fees could enhance the productive potential and environmental quality of federal rangelands. Current Grazing Fee Formula and Distribution of Receipts The Fee Formula The fee charged by BLM and FS is based on the grazing on federal rangelands of a specified number of animals for one month. PRIA establishes a policy of charging a grazing fee that is "equitable" and prevents economic disruption and harm to the western livestock industry. The law requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to set a fee annually that is the estimated economic value of grazing to the livestock owner. The fee is to represent the fair market value of grazing, beginning with a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM. This value is adjusted for three factors based on costs in western states of (1) the rental charge for pasturing cattle on private rangelands, (2) the sales price of beef cattle, and (3) the cost of livestock production. Congress also established that the annual fee adjustment could not exceed 25% of the previous year's fee.15 PRIA required a seven-year trial (1979-1985) of the formula while BLM and FS undertook a study to help Congress determine a permanent fee or fee formula. President Reagan issued Executive Order 12548 (February 14, 1986) to continue indefinitely the PRIA fee formula, and established the minimum fee of $1.35 per AUM. '6 The 2019 grazing fee of $1.35 perAUM represents a 4% decrease from the 2018 fee. Since 1981, BLM and FS have been charging the same fee, as shown in Table 1. The fee has ranged from $1.35 per AUM (for about half of the years during the 39 -year period) to $2.31 per AUM (for 1981). The fee averaged $1.55 perAUM over the period. Table 1. Grazing Fees from 1981 to 2019 (dollars per animal unit month) 1981 $2.31 1991 $ I.97 2001 $1.35 2011 $1.35 1982 $ I.86 1992 $1.92 2002 $ I.43 2012 $ I.35 1983 $ I.40 1993 $1.86 2003 $1.35 2013 $ I.35 1984 $ I.37 1994 $1.98 2004 $1.43 2014 $1.35 15 43 U.S.C. §1905. 16 The executive order is available at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/ 12548.html. Congressional Research Service 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues 1981 $2.31 1991 $ I.97 2001 $1.35 2011 $ I.35 1985 $1.35 1995 $1.61 2005 $ I.79 2015 $1.69 1986 $1.35 1996 $1.35 2006 $ I.56 2016 $2.11 1987 $1.35 1997 $1.35 2007 $1.35 2017 $1.87 1988 $1.54 1998 $1.35 2008 $1.35 2018 $1.41 1989 $1.86 1999 $1.35 2009 $ I.35 2019 $1.35 1990 $1.81 2000 $1.35 2010 $ I.35 Sources: Data for 1981-2005 are primarily derived from p. 83 of a 2005 Government Accountability Office report, GAO -05-869, at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-869. Data for 2006-2019 are primarily derived from annual BLM press releases. See for instance the 2019 press release containing the 2019 fee, at https://www.bl m.gov/press-release/blm-and-forest-service-grazing-fees-lowered-2019. Distribution of Receipts Fifty percent of grazing fees collected by each agency, or $10.0 million -whichever is greater - go to a range betterment fund in the Treasury. BLM and FS grazing receipts are deposited separately." Monies in the fund are subject to appropriations. BLM typically has requested and received an annual appropriation of $10.0 million for the fund. FS generally requests and receives an appropriation that is less than the $10.0 million minimum authorized in law. For instance, for FY2017, the agency received an appropriation of $4.2 million, roughly half the fees collected.'$ The agencies use the range betterment fund for range rehabilitation, protection, and improvement, including grass seeding and reseeding, fence construction, weed control, water development, and fish and wildlife habitat. Under law, one-half of the fund is to be used as directed by the Secretary of the Interior or of Agriculture, and the other half is authorized to be spent in the district, region, or forest that generated the fees, as the Secretary determines after consultation with user representatives.19 Agency regulations contain additional detail. For example, BLM regulations provide that half of the fund is to be allocated by the Secretary on a priority basis, and the rest is to be spent in the state and district where derived. Forest Service regulations provide that half of the monies are to be used in the national forest where derived, and the rest in the FS region where the forest is located. In general, FS returns all range betterment funds to the forest that generated them.2° 17 43 U.S.C. §1751(b)(1). 18 This amount is the actual appropriation based on collections. It differs from the amount the agency requested and received in the appropriations law ($2.3 million), which was an estimate. See USDA, FS, FY2019 Budget Justification, p. 110, at https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/usfs-fy19-budget justification.pdf. 19 43 U.S.C. §1751(b)(1). 20 For BLM, see regulations at 43 C.F.R. §4120.3-8. For FS, see regulations at 36 C.F.R. §222.10. Congressional Research Service 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues The agencies allocate the remaining 50% of the collections differently.21 For FS, 25% of the funds are deposited in the Treasury and 25% are subject to revenue -sharing requirements. The revenue -sharing payments are made to states, but the states do not retain any of the funds. The states pass the funds to specified local governmental entities for use at the county level (16 U.S.C. §500; see Figure 1).22 For BLM, states receive 12.5% of monies collected from lands defined in Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act and 37.5% is deposited in the Treasury.23 Section 3 lands are those within grazing districts for which BLM issues grazing permits. (See Figure 2.) By contrast, states receive 50% of fees collected from BLM lands defined in Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act. Section 15 lands are those outside grazing districts for which BLM leases grazing allotments. (See Figure 3.) For both agencies, any state share is to be used to benefit the counties that generated the receipts. Figure 1. Distribution of Forest Service Grazing Fees Source: CRS. Note: RBF = Range Betterment Fund. 21 The allocations described in this paragraph are made regardless of the amount of fees collected by an agency, including whether the total collection is less than the $10.0 million authorized for the range betterment fund (described above). 22 More specifically, FS is required to share the annual average of 25% of therevenuegenerated on NFS land over the previous seven fiscal years with the counties containing those lands. Starting in 2000, however, Congress has at times authorized counties containing national forest system lands to receive revenue -sharing payments through an alternative payment program called Secure Rural Schools (SRS) payments. Payments made through SRS are based not on current revenue but on a formula that accounts for historic revenue. For more information, see CRS Report R41303, Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self -Determination Act of 2000, by Katie Hoover. Under separate provisions of law (16 U.S.C. §501), 10% of monies received from national forests are to be allocated to the National Forest Roads and Trails Fund. However, these funds sometimes have stayed in the Treasury, as directed by recent annual Interior appropriations laws. 23 Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934; ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269.43 U.S.C. §§315, 315i. Congressional Research Service 5 ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues Figure 2. Distribution of BLM Grazing Figure 3. Distribution of BLM Grazing Fees: Section 3 Fees: Section 15 States 12.5% U.S. 1' Treasury 37.5% RBF 50% States 41 50% RBF 50% Source: CRS. Source: CRS. Note: RBF = Range Betterment Fund. Note: RBF = Range Betterment Fund. History of Fee Evaluation and Reform Attempts PRIA directed the Interior and Agriculture Secretaries to report to Congress, by December 31, 1985, on the results of their evaluation of the fee formula and other grazing fee options and their recommendations for implementing a permanent grazing fee. The Secretaries' report included (1) a discussion of livestock production in the western United States; (2) an estimate of each agency's cost for implementing its grazing programs; (3) estimates of the market value for public rangeland grazing; (4) potential modifications to the PRIA formula; (5) alternative fee systems; and (6) economic effects of the fee system options on permittees.24 A 1992 revision of the report updated the appraised fair market value of grazing on federal rangelands, determined the costs of range management programs, and recalculated the PRIA base value through the application of economic indexes. The study results, criticized by some as using faulty evaluation methods, were not adopted. In the 1990s, grazing fee reform was considered by Congress but no change was enacted. In particular, in the 104th Congress (1995-1996), the Senate passed a bill to establish a new grazing fee formula and alter rangeland regulations. The formula was to be derived from the three-year average of the total gross value of production for beef and no longer indexed to operating costs and private land lease rates, as under PRIA. By one estimate, the measure would have resulted in an increase of about $0.50 per AUM. In the 105th Congress (1997-1998), the House passed a bill with a fee formula based on a 12 -year average of beef cattle production costs and revenues. The formula would have resulted in a 1997 fee of about $1.84 per AUM. Since the 1990s, it appears that no major bills to alter the grazing fee have passed the chambers. Also in the 1990s —and in subsequent years —certain Presidents proposed changes to grazing fees and related policies. However, these changes were not adopted. As one example, in 1993, the Clinton Administration proposed an administrative increase in the fee and revisions of other grazing policies. The proposed fee formula started with a base value of $3.96 per AUM and was 24 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation, A Report from the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior (Washington, DC: February 1986). Congressional Research Service 6 ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues to be adjusted to reflect annual changes in private land lease rates in the West (called the Forage Value Index). The current PRIA formula is adjusted using multiple indexes. As a second example, for some fiscal years (e.g., FY2008), President George W. Bush proposed terminating the deposit of 50% of BLM's grazing fees into the range betterment fund. The fee collections would have gone instead to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. As a third example, for some fiscal years, President Obama proposed a grazing administrative fee for BLM and FS (e.g., of $1.00 per AUM in FY2015 and $2.50 per AUM in FY2017). These administrative fees would have been additional to the annual grazing fee, and the agencies would have used them to offset the cost of administering the livestock grazing programs. Current Issues Fee Level There is ongoing debate about the appropriate grazing fee, with several key areas of contention. First, there are differences over which criteria should prevail in setting fees: fair market value; cost recovery (whereby the monies collected would cover the government's cost of running the program); sustaining ranching, or resource -based rural economies generally; or diversification of local economies. Second, there is disagreement over the validity of fair market value estimates for federal grazing because federal and private lands for leasing are not always directly comparable. Third, whether to have a uniform fee, or varied fees based on biological and economic conditions, is an area of debate. Fourth, there are diverse views on the environmental costs and benefits of grazing on federal lands and on the environmental impact of changes in grazing levels. Fifth, it is uncertain whether fee increases would reduce the number of cattle grazing on sensitive lands, such as riparian areas.25 Sixth, some environmentalists assert that the fee is not the main issue, but that all livestock grazing should be barred to protect federal lands. As noted, there have been proposals to alter the grazing fee in recent years, but these proposals have not been adopted. For example, the Obama Administration's proposed grazing administration fee of $2.50 per AUM in 2017 would have been in addition to the annual fee of $2.11 per AUM. The monies would have been used for administering grazing to shift a portion of the costs to permit holders. Use of the fees would have been subject to appropriations. BLM estimated that the proposed administrative fee would have generated $16.5 million in FY2017, and FS estimated revenues of $15.0 million in FY2017.26 Livestock organizations, among others, opposed the proposal as an unnecessary and burdensome cost for the livestock industry. The Administration had included similar proposals in earlier budget requests; none of these proposals were enacted. As another example, in 2005, several groups petitioned BLM and FS to raise the grazing fees, asserting that the fees did not reflect the fair market value of federal forage. When the agencies did not respond to the petition, the groups sued.27 In addition to asserting that BLM and FS 25 As described in a BLM glossary, riparian areas are "[hands adjacent to creeks, streams, and rivers where vegetation is strongly influenced by the presence of water." See DOI, BLM, Public Land Statistics, 2017, p. 247, at https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/PublicLandStatistics2017. 26 DOI, BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2017, p. II -6 and VII -35 — VII -36, athttps://edit.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/FY2017_BLM_Budget_Justification.pdf. USDA, FS, FY2017 Budget Justification, pp. 39-40, at https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/fy-2017-fs-budget justification.pdf. 27 Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 10 -CV -952 (D.D.C. Complaint filed June 7, 2010). Congressional Research Service 7 ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues unreasonably delayed response to their petition, the petitioners argued that the agencies were required to conduct a study under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to determine the environmental impacts of the current grazing fee rate. In January 2011, BLM and FS responded to the petition, denying the request for a fee increase, and the lawsuit was settled.28 State and Private Grazing Fees The BLM and FS grazing fee has generally been lower than fees charged for grazing on other federal lands as well as on state and private lands, as shown in studies over the past 15 years. For instance, a 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that other federal agencies29 charged $0.29 to $112.50 perAUM in 2004, when the BLM and FS fee was $1.43 per AUM. While BLM and FS use a formula to set the grazing fee, most agencies charge a fee based on competitive methods or a market price for forage. Some seek to recover the costs of their grazing programs. GAO also reported that in 2004, state fees ranged from $1.35 to $80 perAUM and private fees ranged from $8 to $23 per AUM.3° In 2010, when the BLM and FS fee was $1.35 per AUM, state grazing fees continued to show wide variation. They ranged from $2.28 per AUM for Arizona to $65-$150 per AUM for Texas. Moreover, some states did not base fees on AUMs, but rather had fees that were variable, were set by auction, were based on acreage of grazing, or were tied to the rate for grazing on private lands.31 Further, a 2018 study of state grazing fees in 11 western states continued to show widely differing fees, ranging from $3.50 per AUM for New Mexico to $65-$100 per AUM for Texas. Fees for these states were higher than the 2018 BLM and FS fee ($1.41 per AUM).32 For grazing on private lands in 2017, the average monthly lease rate for lands in 16 western states was $23.40 per head. Fees ranged from $11.50 in Oklahoma to $39.00 in Nebraska.33 For comparison, in 2017, the BLM and FS grazing fee was $1.87 per AUM. 28 Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 10 -CV -952 (D.D.C. Order filed February 23, 2011). 29 Other federal agencies covered by the GAO study included the Department of Energy, agencies (in addition to BLM) within the Department of the Interior, and agencies within the Department of Defense. 30 GAO, Livestock Grazing: Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged, GAO -05-869 (Washington, DC: September 2005), pp. 37-40, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05- 869. Hereinafter cited as GAO, Livestock Grazing, 2005. 31 These figures and information are derived from an April 2011 study by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. The report is at https://web.archive.org/web/20120930233640/http:/dnrc.mt.gov/Trust/ AGM/GrazingRateStudy/Documents/GrazingReviewByBioeconomics.pdfhttps://web. archive.org/web/ 20150301051054/https:/dnrc.mt.gov/Trust/AGM/GrazingRateStudy/Documents/ GrazingReviewByBioeconomics.pdfhttp://dnrc.mt.gov/Trust/AGM/GrazingRateStudy/Documents/ GrazingReviewByBioeconomics.pdf. In particular, Table 1 (p. 9) compares fees on state lands in 17 western states. https://web.archive. org/web/20150301051054/https:/dnrc.mt.gov/Trust/AGM/GrazingRateStudy/Documents/ GrazingReviewByBioeconomics.pdfhttp://dnrc.mt.gov/Trust/AGM/GrazingRateStudy/Documents) GrazingReviewByBioeconomics.pdf 32 Holly Dwyer, WY Office of State Lands & Investments, 2018, State Trust Land Grazing Fees, at https://www.wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2018/05-20180927 StateLandsGrazingFees.pdf. 33 Statistics on grazing fees on private lands were taken from U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Charts and Maps, Grazing Fees: Per Head Fee, 17 States, January 2018, at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Grazing_Fees/gf hm.php. Including Texas, which also had a fee of $11.50, the 17 -state average fee was $20.60 in 2017. For many years, the National Agricultural Statistics Service has published fees for grazing on private lands. Congressional Research Service 8 ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues Comparing the BLM and FS grazing fee with state and private fees is complicated due to a number of factors. One factor is the varying purposes for which the fees are charged. Many states and private landowners seek market value for grazing. As noted above, PRIA established the BLM and FS fee in accordance with multiple purposes. They included preventing economic disruption and harm to the western livestock industry as well as being "equitable" and representing the fair market value of grazing. While the base fee originally reflected what was considered to be fair market value, the adjustments included in the formula have not resulted in fees comparable to state and private fees. According to GAO's 2005 study, "it is generally recognized that while the federal government does not receive a market price for its permits and leases, ranchers have paid a market price for their federal permits or leases —by paying (1) grazing fees; (2) nonfee grazing costs, including the costs of operating on federal lands, such as protecting threatened and endangered species (i.e., limiting grazing area or time); and (3) the capitalized permit value."34 Regarding the latter, the capitalized value of grazing permits typically is reflected in higher purchase prices that federal permit holders pay for their ranches. A second factor is the quality of resources on the lands being grazed and the number and types of services provided by the landowners. For example, in its 2005 study, GAO noted advantages of grazing on private lands over federal lands. They included generally better forage and sources of water; services provided by private landowners, such as watering, fencing, feeding, veterinary care, and maintenance; the ability of lessees to sublease, thus generating revenue; and limited public access. With regard to state lands, the study indicated that states also typically limit public access to their lands, while the quality of forage and the availability of water are more comparable to federal lands.35 A third factor is whether the federal grazing fee alone or other non -fee costs of operating on federal lands are considered in comparing federal and nonfederal costs. Some research suggests that ranchers might spend more to graze on federal lands than private lands when both fee and non -fee costs are considered. Non -fee costs relate to maintenance, herding, moving livestock, and lost animals, among other factors. 36 Grazing Without Paying Fees Unauthorized grazing occurs on BLM and FS lands in a variety of ways, including when cattle graze outside the allowed areas or seasons or in larger numbers than allowed under permit. According to GAO, the frequency and extent of unauthorized grazing is not known, because many cases are handled informally by agency staff. However, during the five-year period spanning 2010 to 2014, BLM and FS documented nearly 1,500 instances of unauthorized grazing, some of which involved the livestock owners having to pay penalties and, less frequently, livestock impoundment.37 In many cases the unauthorized grazing is unintentional, but in other cases livestock owners have intentionally grazed cattle on federal land without getting a permit or paying the required fee. The livestock owners have claimed that they do not need to have permits or pay grazing fees for 34 GAO, Livestock Grazing, 2005, pp. 49-50, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-869. 35 GAO, Livestock Grazing, 2005, p. 49, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-869. 36 Neil Rimbey and L. Allen Torrell, Grazing Costs: What's the Current Situation?, University of Idaho, March 22, 2011. 37 GAO, Unauthorized Grazing: Actions Needed to Improve Tracking and Deterrence Efforts, GAO -16-559 (Washington, DC: July 2016), pp. 12-13, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-559. Congressional Research Service 9 ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues various reasons, such as that the land is owned by the public; that the land belongs to a tribe under a treaty; or that other rights, such as state water rights, extend to the accompanying forage. A particularly long-standing controversy involves cattle grazed by Cliven Bundy in Nevada.38 After about two decades of pursuing administrative and judicial resolutions, in April 2014, BLM and the National Park Service began impounding Mr. Bundy's cattle on the grounds that he did not have authority to graze on certain federal lands and had not been paying grazing fees for more than 20 years. BLM estimated at that time that Mr. Bundy owed more than $1 million to the federal government (including grazing fees and trespassing fees) as a result of unauthorized grazing. However, the agencies ceased the impoundment of the cattle due to fears of confrontation between private citizens opposed to the roundup and federal law enforcement officials present during the impoundment. Mr. Bundy had not been paying grazing fees to the federal government primarily on the assertion that the lands do not belong to the United States but rather to the state of Nevada, and that his ancestors used the land before the federal government claimed ownership.39 However, courts determined that the United States owns the lands, enjoined Mr. Bundy from grazing livestock in these areas, and authorized the United States to impound cattle remaining in the trespass areas.40 BLM continues to seek to resolve the issue through the judicial process. BLM estimated that during the two decades prior to the 2014 intended impoundment of Mr. Bundy's cattle, the agency had impounded cattle about 50 times. The operation to remove Mr. Bundy's cattle from federal lands in Nevada was the biggest removal effort, in terms of the number of cattle and the area involved, according to BLM.41 It was also one of the most controversial, in part because of the number and role of law enforcement officials and the temporary closures of land to conduct the impoundment.42 Voluntary Permit Retirement There have been efforts to end livestock grazing on certain federal lands through voluntary retirement of permits and leases and subsequent closure of the allotments to grazing. This practice is supported by those who view grazing as damaging to the environment, more costly than beneficial, and difficult to reconcile with other land uses. This practice is opposed by those who support ranching on the affected lands, fear a widespread effort to eliminate ranching as a way of life, or question the legality of the process. In some cases, supporters seek to have ranchers relinquish their permits to the government in exchange for compensation by third parties, particularly environmental groups. The third parties seek to acquire the permits through transfer, and advocate agency amendments to land use plans to permanently devote the grazing lands to other purposes, such as watershed conservation.43 38 Except where otherwise noted, information in this paragraph was derived from information provided to CRS by BLM on April 24, 2014, and information formerly on BLM's website (since removed). 39 See for example, CBS/AP, CBS News, "Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy: The Citizens of America' Got My Cattle Back," April 13, 2014, at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-the-citizens-of-america-got- my-cattle-back/. 4° For example, court orders were issued on July 9, 2013, and October 9, 2013. 41 Telephone communication between BLM and the Congressional Research Service, April 23, 2014. 42 Jon Ralston, "Former BLM Director: Bundy is Not a Victim but BLM Mishandled Roundup," Ralston Reports, April 14, 2014, at http://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/former-blm-director-bundy-not-victim-blm-mishandled-roundup. 43 The third parties would not pay grazing fees under their permits if they opt not to graze during the amendment process, because fees are paid for actual grazing, Congressional Research Service 10 ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues Legislation to authorize an end to grazing in particular areas through voluntary donations of the permits by the permit holders has been introduced in recent Congresses. These measures generally provide for the Secretary of the Interior and/or the Secretary of Agriculture to accept the donation of a permit, terminate the permit, and end grazing on the associated land (or reduce grazing where the donation involves a portion of the authorized grazing). Provisions authorizing such voluntary permit donations in specific areas have sometimes been enacted.44 Other bills have sought to establish pilot programs for livestock operators to voluntarily relinquish permits and leases in particular states. Still other measures have proposed allowing the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to accept a certain number of waived permits, such as a maximum of 100 each year. Under both types of measures, when the Secretaries accept waived permits, they would permanently retire such permits and leases and end grazing on the affected allotments (or reduce grazing where the relinquishment involves a portion of the authorized grazing). Provisions authorizing such pilot programs for particular states or authorizing acceptance of a certain number of waived permits have not been enacted. In earlier Congresses, legislation was introduced to buy out grazing permittees (or lessees) on federal lands generally or on particular allotments.45 Such legislation provided that permittees who voluntarily relinquished their permits would be compensated at a certain dollar value per AUM, generally significantly higher than the market rate. The allotments would have been permanently closed to grazing. Such legislation, which had been backed by the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign, was advocated to enhance resource protection, resolve conflicts between grazing and other land uses, provide economic options to permittees, and save money. According to proponents, while a buyout program would be costly if all permits were relinquished, it would save more than the cost over time. Opponents of buyout legislation include those who support grazing, others who fear the creation of a compensable property right in grazing permits, some who contend that it would be too costly, or still others who support different types of grazing reform. Extension of Expiring Permits The extension, renewal, transfer, and reissuance of grazing permits have been issues for Congress. Both BLM and FS have a backlog of permits needing evaluation for renewal. For instance, BLM's backlog has been increasing for more than a decade, with a backlog of more than 7,000 permit renewals as of September 30, 2017.46 To allow for continuity in grazing operations, Congress had enacted a series of temporary provisions of law allowing the terms and conditions of grazing permits to continue in effect until the agencies complete processing of a renewal. The most recent provision, P.L. 113-291 (Section 3023), made permanent the automatic renewal (until the renewal evaluation process is complete) of grazing permits and leases that expire or are transferred.47 44 See, for example, P.L. 114-46, Section 102(e), for certain wilderness areas in Idaho and P.L. 112-74, Section 122, for the California Desert Conservation Area. 45 For example, see H.R. 3166 in the 109th Congress. 46 DOI, BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2019, p. VI -37, at https://www.doi.gov/ sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2019_blm_budgetjustification.pdf. The figure in the document shows grazing permits processed by BLM, and permits in an unprocessed status, annually from FY1999-FY2017. 47 This provision was enacted as an amendment to portions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (specifically 43 U.S.C. 1752) pertaining to livestock grazing on BLM and FS lands in 16 contiguous western states, which is the focus of this report. Annual appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies have continued to provide automatic extension of grazing permits on other FS lands. Congressional Research Service 11 ATTACHMENT 1 Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues Agency decisions regarding permit issuance are subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That environmental review would include the identification of any additional state, tribal, or federal environmental compliance requirements, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), that would apply to a permitted grazing operation. P.L. 113-291 provided that the issuance of a grazing permit "may" be categorically excluded from this NEPA requirement under certain conditions.¢$ Provisions regarding categorical exclusions have been controversial. Supporters assert that they will expedite the renewal process, foster certainty of grazing operations, and reduce agency workload and expenses. Opponents have expressed concern that categorical exclusions could result in insufficient environmental review and public comment to determine range conditions. Author Information Carol Hardy Vincent Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS's institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 48 For information about the various levels of environmental review required under NEPA, see CRS Report RL33152, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation, by Linda Luther. Congressional Research Service RS21232 • VERSION 29 • UPDATED 12 ATTACHMENT 2 Biological Conservation 227 (2018) 310-318 A n DER Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: ww.elsevier.com/locate/biocon - BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Perspective A fence runs through it: A call for greater attention to the influence of fences on wildlife and ecosystems Andrew F. Jakesa°x^1, Paul F. Jonesb, L. Christine Paige, Renee G. Seidlerd°2, Marcel P. Huijsere Wildlife Biology Program, Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences, W. A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula 59812, MT, USA b Alberta Conservation Association, 817 4th Avenue S. #400, Lethbridge TIJ OP3, Alberta, Canada Ravenworks Ecology, 962 Dusty Trail Rd, Driggs, ID 83422, USA d Wildlife Conservation Society, North America Program, Teton Field Office, PO Box 936, Driggs, ID 83422, USA e Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University, PO Box 174250, Bozeman 59717, MT, USA heck fOf up� ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Barriers Connectivity Ecosystem processes Fence modification Fencing Wildlife ABSTRACT Fencing is a nearly ubiquitous infrastructure that influences landscapes across space and time, and the impact of fences on wildlife and ecosystems is of global concern. Yet the prevalence and commonness of fences has contributed to their "invisibility" and a lack of attention in research and conservation, resulting in a scarcity of empirical data regarding their effects. Stakeholders, including scientists, conservationists, resource managers, and private landholders, have limited understanding of how fences affect individual animals, populations, or ecosystem processes. Because fences are largely unmapped and undocumented, we do not know their full spatial extent, nor do we fully comprehend the interactions of fences with wild species, whether positive or negative. To better understand and manage fence effects on wildlife and ecosystems, we advocate for an expanded effort to examine all aspects of fence ecology: the empirical investigation of the interactions between fences, wildlife, ecosystems, and societal needs. We first illustrate the global prevalence of fencing, and outline fence function and common designs. Second, we review the pros and cons of fencing relative to wildlife conservation. Lastly, we identify knowledge gaps and suggest research needs in fence ecology. We hope to inspire fellow scientists and conservationists to "see" and study fences as a broad -scale infrastructure that has widespread influence. Once we better understand the influences and cumulative effects of fences, we can develop and implement practical solutions for sustaining wildlife and ecosystems in balance with social needs. 1. Introduction Globally, wildlife contend with shrinking natural habitats in land- scapes dominated by an expanding human footprint and the accumu- lating influence of infrastructure (Sanderson et al., 2002; Johnson et al., 2005; Leu et al., 2008). Linear transport and energy infrastructures (e.g., roads, pipelines, power lines, canals) often have negative impacts on native wildlife and ecological processes through direct mortality, creating barriers and hazards, or altering behavior (Bevanger, 1998; Lemly et al., 2000; Trombulak and Frissell, 2000; Taylor and Knight, 2003; Benitez -Lopez et al., 2010). The resulting habitat fragmentation, population declines, and disrupted ecosystem processes (e.g., seasonal migrations (Berger, 2004)), have broad -scale effects on wildlife and natural ecosystems and have prompted substantial investment in research and mitigation. Fencing is nearly ubiquitous yet has received far less research at- tention than roads, powerlines, and other types of linear infrastructure. Worldwide, lands are laced with countless kilometers of fences erected by diverse stakeholders at different scales for widely varying purposes. Collectively, fences form extensive and irregular networks stretching across landscapes, and their influence on wildlife and ecosystems is likely far-reaching. Yet fencing is largely overlooked and is essentially "invisible" in terms of systematic research and evaluation. We see parallels with road ecology in the widespread influence of fences. In recent decades, substantial investment into the study of road ecology has driven its advancement as a science, leading to improved public safety and wildlife conservation. Yet in many landscapes fences are more prevalent than roadways. Unlike roads, fences have vertical Corresponding author at: National Wildlife Federation, Northern Rockies, Prairies & Pacific Region, 240 North Higgins Ave., Suite 2, Missoula, MT 59802, USA. E-mail address: jakesa@nwf.org (A.F. Jakes). 1 Present address: National Wildlife Federation, Northern Rockies, Prairies & Pacific Region, 240 North Higgins Ave., Suite 2, Missoula, Montana, USA, 59802. 2 Present address: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 4279 Commerce Circle, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USA, 83401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.026 Received 4 June 2018; Received in revised form 4 September 2018; Accepted 20 September 2018 0006-3207/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. ATTACHMENT 2 A.F. Jakes et aL Biological Conservation 227 (2018) 310-318 Fig. 1. Fence densities vary widely in difference landscapes. (a) Roadside boundary/livestock fence in rural landscape; (b) pasture fence in exurban landscape; (c) yard fence in suburban landscape. structure that imposes unique hazards and barriers for wildlife, are typically unregulated, are constructed and maintained largely by pri- vate landholders, but we may be able to mitigate some of their ecolo- gical effects in a cost-effective manner. To date, most empirical research on wildlife -fence interactions and fence systems has been limited in scope, often focused on single species at local spatial scales. Existing studies have largely addressed fence impacts on ungulates or at -risk species, often motivated by mortalities and barriers to known movements (e.g., Mbaiwa and Mbaiwa, 2006; Harrington and Conover, 2006). Large gaps exist in the empirical sci- ence on wildlife -fence interactions and we need more information to support wildlife conservation and resource management. We lack knowledge on the broad -scale and cumulative effects of fence infra- structure on a multitude of species, population demographics, and ecosystem processes. We do not know the longer -term or ecosystem - level consequences of fences, even of those fences erected for specific conservation objectives. There is a fledgling but growing movement in North America and elsewhere to install wildlife friendlier fence designs (Paige, 2012, 2015), now advocated by many conservation groups and government agencies. Yet most of the practical experience with fences —their de- sign, utility, installation, and modifications —resides among private landholders and government resource managers, whose knowledge is built on field trials and circulated via peers. Private landholders, in- cluding livestock growers, construct and maintain most fences, are fa- miliar with their location and structure, and need them to be functional. Working with these stakeholders represents an excellent opportunity to develop effective fence solutions that maintain local economies, reduce impacts to wildlife, and sustain dynamic ecosystems. Without a sys- tematic understanding of fences —their purpose, design, extent, and ecological effects —we cannot communicate or collaborate effectively for conservation goals, nor create more sustainable landscapes where people and wildlife can co -exist. Therefore, we advocate for a greater focus on fence ecology: the empirical investigation of the interactions between fences, wildlife, ecosystems, and societal needs. In nearly every fenced landscape, there are opportunities to study and better understand the influence of fences on wildlife populations and ecological processes at multiple scales. In 311 A.F. Jakes et aL ATTACHMENT 2 Biological Conservation 227 (2018) 310-318 addition, there is an urgent need to examine alternative fence designs and systems that are more sustainable for people and wildlife and to provide a clearer understanding of the use of fencing in the context of wildlife conservation and management. In this essay, we first illustrate the prevalence of fencing and offer a brief overview of contemporary fence functions and typical designs. Second, we review the positive and negative effects of fencing as it relates to wildlife conservation. Lastly, we identify knowledge gaps and suggest research opportunities in fence ecology. We examine our cur- rent level of knowledge, which is largely limited to wildlife -fence in- teractions at small spatial scales. We advocate for interdisciplinary re- search that examines issues at larger spatial scales and with a larger suite of stakeholders —shifting focus from studying effects on individual animals or small groups of wildlife to entire populations and ecosystem processes. Because the influence of fences on nature applies globally, we invite specialists worldwide to pursue a better understanding of fence ecology within their own ecological and social setting. A better understanding of the full ramifications of fence infrastructure will in- form conservation decision -making and encourage creative alter- natives. 2. Fence functions and types Fences serve to protect and manage resources, delineate land ownership, and define political boundaries (Kotchemidova, 2008). The first fences were constructed of readily available natural materials at relatively small scales, and required considerable investment in labor (Baudry et al., 2000; Woods et al., 2017). The invention of barbed wire in 1874 made it possible to fence vast areas with little cost and effort (Liu, 2009). Barbed wire and other mass -manufactured materials bol- stered a rapid proliferation of fencing, which has fundamentally altered landscapes and cultures worldwide. Today, fences continue to proliferate as land uses shift, natural and rural areas are developed or exploited, and transportation networks multiply (Linnell et al., 2016; Li et al., 2017; Lovschal et al., 2017). The design, density, and extent of fencing are highly variable between urban, rural, and open or natural landscapes. For example, Fig. 1 il- lustrates the dissimilarity in fence type and density in three landscapes of western North America —each area presents different challenges and consequences for wildlife and conservation. Fences are spatially extensive, creating vertical obstacles for wildlife to cross, and are constructed with varying degrees of permeability. In many rural areas, fencing far exceeds roads in linear extent. We com- pared fencing spatial data from Seward et al. (2012) to available road spatial data for southern Alberta, Canada (Alberta Base Features Data - Spatial Data Warehouse© 2017). We found that the linear extent of fences was twice that of all roads per township, 16 times the extent of paved roads, 7 times the extent of two -track roads, and 4 times the extent of gravel roads (Fig. 2). 120 100 80 1` 60 2 40 20 0 As land use change transformed once contiguous landscapes, the proliferation of fences has accelerated the fragmentation of ecosystems. For example, in the eastern Qinghai -Tibetan Plateau region of China, the rapid spread of fences created ecosystem -level impacts due to a shift from traditional pastoralism to land privatization (Li et al., 2017.) The erection of fences altered the grazing behavior of yaks (Bos grunniens), which increased grazing intensity, degraded pastures, and changed the vegetation community and ecological regime (Li et al., 2017). In the Greater Mara ecosystem of East Africa, rapid proliferation of fencing threatens the region's great animal migrations and traditional Maasai pastoralism (Lovschal et al., 2017). hi Asia, Europe, and North America, shifts in global politics have resulted in an increase in impermeable boundary fences erected along international borders, fragmenting landscapes and presenting barriers to animal movements (Lasky et al., 2011; Linnell et al., 2016). Contemporary purposes of fencing fall into four categories, which often overlap: (1) livestock (i.e., pasture or range) fence to control domestic livestock; (2) exclusion fence to protect public safety and private or public resources; (3) boundary fence to delineate land- holdings or political boundaries; and (4) conservation fencing to protect at -risk species. Worldwide, these fence categories employ a wide variety of construction designs, materials, and spatial distribution across the landscape (Table 1). The impact that fence designs have on wildlife varies from positive (e.g., protection from poaching), in the case of conservation fences, to primarily negative (e.g., barriers to movement) in the case of the other three types of fences (Table 1). However, even fences designed to have positive benefits for focal spe- cies may have negative consequences for other species. 3. The dichotomy of fences: conservation tool or ecological threat? Within the world of conservation, debate about fences stems from the equivocal nature of an infrastructure that can be a valuable in- strument for management and protection or cause wildlife mortality and ecological tragedy —or both (Pfeifer et al., 2014; Woodroffe et al., 2014). Fences are often erected to safeguard threatened species, sen- sitive habitats, or to manage vegetation objectives using livestock grazing as a tool. Conversely, many managers and conservationists promote removal or modification of existing fences to increase ecolo- gical connectivity and reduce harmful impacts to wildlife. In light of this dichotomy, we provide a schematic interpretation (Fig. 3) to il- lustrate the far-reaching interactions that fences have on wildlife. This schematic is not exhaustive, but provides a framework for discussion. Wildlife interactions with fences can be direct (physical) or indirect (behavioral), and lead to positive or negative consequences (Fig. 3). On the positive side, fencing designed specifically for conservation can reduce mortality of target species, help restore ecosystem connectivity across transportation corridors by guiding wildlife to safe crossing Fared Roads Two -Track Roads Grand Roads Type Total Roads Fences Fig. 2. The extent of fences on a landscape may far exceed that of roads. Comparison of the mean kilo- meters of fences per township to the mean kilometers of three types of roads per township in southern Alberta, Canada. Each error bar was constructed using the 95% confidence interval of the mean. Fence data obtained from Seward et al. (2012); road data obtained from the Alberta complete road layer of the Alberta Base Fea- tures Data (©Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd., 2017). (Disclaimer: The Minister and the Crown provides this in- formation without warranty or representation as to any matter including but not limited to whether the data/in- formation is correct, accurate, or free from error, defect, danger, or hazard and whether it is otherwise useful or suitable for any use the user may make of it). 312 A.F. Jakes et aL ATTACHMENT 2 Biological Conservation 227 (2018) 310-318 Impact to wildlife 5) tock distribution N b 0 V o '. to 3 ",-go eo ;� Sp v-2 2 G N P: Local government Protect social or natural resources. Exclusion fence Boundary fence up w 0 U opportunities, and reduce wildlife -human conflict, thus increasing so- cial acceptance of wildlife. When employed as a tool in wildlife man- agement, fences may deliver positive results for target species and ha- bitats (Hayward and Kerley, 2009). Fencing can contain and protect sensitive natural areas, particularly within areas heavily modified by habitat loss and degradation (Homyack and Giuliano, 2002; Miller et al., 2010), deter poaching (Dupuis-Desormeaux et al., 2016), and protect sensitive species by reducing predation (Young et al., 2013; Cornwall, 2016; Ringma et al., 2017). Fencing can also limit disease transmission by separating wildlife and livestock (VerCauteren et al., 2007; Lavelle et al., 2010), stem encroachment of invasive and non- native species into protected areas (see Hayward and Kerley, 2009, for review), and minimize crop and livestock depredation conflicts, fos- tering greater social tolerance of wildlife (Huygens and Hayashi, 1999; King et al., 2017). Fences are increasingly used to keep wild and do- mestic animals off transportation corridors and guide them towards safe crossings (Leblond et al., 2007; Huijser et al., 2016), which increases human safety, reduces wildlife mortality, and maintains connectivity for wildlife (Beckmann et al., 2010). Fences will continue to be an important and effective management tool —the challenge is to re- cognize their full ecological context and potential adverse effects. Negative consequences of wildlife -fence interactions can be classi- fied as direct or indirect. Direct effects involve physical contact between the individual and the fence. These include direct mortality, injuries, and hair loss, which can result in reduced individual- or population - level fitness. The most observable impact is direct mortality, which can happen immediately when an animal collides with fencing or slowly when animals are caught in fences and die from exposure, starvation, or predation. Direct mortality of a wide range of birds and mammals from fence collisions and entanglements has been documented worldwide (Allen and Ramirez, 1990; Baines and Andrew, 2003; Harrington and Conover, 2006; Booth, 2007; Rey et at, 2012). More difficult to mea- sure are injuries and hair loss that occur from encounters with fences while crossing. Jones (2014) documented hair loss in pronghorn (An- tilocapra americana) as a result of crossing barbed wire fences and postulated the implications. The rate of wildlife mortality and injury as a result of direct contact with fences is largely unknown because most cases go unreported or unnoticed, or the carcasses are scavenged. Indirect effects of fences on wildlife manifest themselves as changes in behavior and biology. These include heightened stress of negotiating fences, separation of neonates from mothers (Harrington and Conover, 2006), obstructed movements, habitat loss, and fragmentation. Stress occurs when animals are temporarily entangled, search frantically for a place to cross by pacing up and down the fence (Seidler et al., 2018), or must negotiate multiple fences in a landscape. These impacts can ac- cumulate over time and contribute to increased energy expenditure, higher mortality rates, and decreased overall fitness of individuals. Young that cannot negotiate a fence and are separated from adults can die of dehydration, exposure, or predation (Harrington and Conover, 2006), and the loss of neonates reduces recruitment and potentially population size. Many of these indirect effects are difficult to observe, quantify, and fully evaluate. Fences often delineate and separate areas of modified terrain (e.g., tilled agriculture, grazed pasture, urbanization, etc.) and some, such as veterinary cordon or wildlife -proof fences, stretch for kilometers across large regions. Such fences act as barriers, isolate remnant habitats, and fragment landscapes (Hobbs et al., 2008). As barriers and obstacles, these fences limit or block wildlife movements and influence wildlife behavior, with potential individual- and population -level consequences that ultimately alter the ecological integrity of natural systems (Berger, 2004; Sawyer et at, 2013; Jakes et al., 2018). Impermeable fences or large-scale fence networks can jeopardize the fecundity and survival of individuals and populations, reduce genetic connectivity, and alter ecological processes such as herbivory and nutrient flow (Hilty et al., 2006; Taylor et al., 2006). When fences severely fragment an eco- system, wildlife populations become isolated, reducing genetic 313 A.F. Jakes et aL ATTACHMENT 2 Biological Conservation 227 (2018) 310-318 Wildlife -Fence Interaction Positive Wildlife -Fence Interaction Negative 1 r . r Game Preserve Re -introduction Resource Protection and Protected Inclusion (e.g., stack feed, Areas `(e.g., soh release pen),„ gardens, livestock) 1 1 Reduce Mortality (e.q, poachi g, ci sive, or feral pecies)es) Reduce Depredation and Conflict 1 1 Right-of-way Fencing . 1 J Reduce Wildlife Vehicle Collisions 1 Maintain Connectivity (habitat andpopulation) Direct Mortality (instantaneous or prolonged) Reduced Fitness (individual and populati nlevell Behavioral rDirect Movement (e.g., row Ms road crossing stmcturel Species Conservation Social Acceptance of Wildlife Reduced Mortality (wildlife and human) Barrier (semi -permeable or complete) Altered Movement } Population and Genetic Isolation 1 Behavioral 1 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Unnatural Habitat (e.g., perches, change ncover) Indrect Mortality Inbreeding Unn tural Predator -Prey Inter ction Fig. 3. Depiction of the positive and negative interactions between wildlife and fences. The shaded boxes represent outcomes of the various interactions. exchange, diversity, and individual and population fitness (Jaeger and Fahrig, 2004; Ito et al., 2013). In North America in recent decades, greater attention has been given to the effects of fences on wildlife, especially ungulates and grouse, with studies focused on the obstacles that fences pose for long distance migration and dispersal, and their effect on connectivity for wildlife across landscapes (Berger, 2004; Hilty et al., 2006; Taylor et al., 2006; Seidler et al., 2015). As a result, various fence modifications and crossings have been promoted to reduce animal injury, mortality, and ease animal passage (e.g., Paige, 2012, 2015). For example, in the United States, resource agencies have widely adopted fence markers to increase visibility for lesser prairie -chicken and greater sage -grouse, and smooth bottom wire to aid pronghorn passage. Many designs have been based on trial and error in the field, yet progressively more at- tention is being given to testing the effects of specific fence modifica- tions on particular species (Stevens et al., 2013; Van Lanen et al., 2017; Burkholder et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2018). Although promoted by agencies and conservation organizations, the implementation of wild- life -friendlier fence designs across landscapes is patchy and by no means universal. Even fences constructed for particular conservation purposes can produce unintended consequences. For example, veterinary cordon fences erected across Botswana to control disease transmission between livestock and wild ungulates led to dramatic and devastating declines in migratory ungulates (Williamson and Williamson, 1984; Mbaiwa and Mbaiwa, 2006). The extensive dingo (Canis lupus dingo) and rabbit - proof fences of Australia were erected to protect livestock and grazing lands, but altered predator -prey dynamics of endemic and introduced species with negative consequences for vegetation and ecosystems (Newsome et al., 2001; Johnson et al., 2007). Protected area and agricultural fences in east Africa fragment landscapes, alter ecological functions and wildlife movements, and can aggravate tensions between wildlife conservation and the livelihoods of local communities or no- madic pastoralists (Reid et al., 2004; Fynn et al., 2016). Depending on design, maintenance, and the social and ecological context, fences erected with the best of intentions may actually exacerbate conserva- tion conflicts. 4. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities The current empirical research on the interactions between fences, wildlife, and ecosystems, especially at broad scales, is slim. Opportunities for study range from fence design and efficacy, to bio- logical and ecological influences, to understanding the social aspects of fence systems and adoption of change —topics that are often inter- woven. Advancing our understanding of the influence of fence infra- structure begins with identifying knowledge gaps so that questions can be posed and tested. Fence -related empirical research can inform and shape solutions for conservation, on -the -ground mitigation actions, systematic monitoring, and adaptive management (Table 2). 4.1. Fence extent and design Most linear anthropogenic features that cross landscapes are readily mapped and incorporated into spatial analyses. Fences are largely un- mapped and undocumented: we do not know the full extent of where they are, and we do not have efficient methods or tools to catalogue their design, purpose, and condition. Assessment of fence influences at landscape and ecosystem scales is hampered by a lack of elementary data on the magnitude, type, condition, and density of existing fence infrastructure. Efforts to generate geospatial fence data have so far used modeling to approximate the density of fences at regional scales, 314 '(D 7a Sa4Df 3'V Table 2 Suggested kno wledge gaps and general research opportunities in fence ecol ogy. Kno wledge gaps Research opportunities Acti ons Outcom es Design & exten t Wildlife Ecosystems Fence exten t & condition Efficacy of designs Behavior & biology Popu latio n Landscape -level effects Soils Ve getatio n Ecological processes So cial dimen sions Local cu ltu re Economic co sts and inc entives • Methods for ge ospatial analysis of fence distributi on and condition. • New designs for specific wildlife mitigati ons . • Efficacy of wildlife fe nce desig ns. • Biological & ecological costs/be nefits of co nservati on fences. • A lternative methods to manage li vestock distrib ution . • Spe cies' perception, reacti on to, and physic al ne gotiation of various fence types. • In fluence of fences on species' distribution . • Bio logical respo nse to stress or e nergy loss due to fences. • R ates of injury an d mo rtality due to fences. • Physical an d biological factors that contribute to injury, mo rtality, stre ss, populatio n -level effects. • Influence of fencing and distribution at landscape scales on species and ecosystems. • Fe nce hotspots tha t impede wildlife movements. • Influence of conservation fen ces on eco logical commu nities or pro ce sse s. • Changes in soil c hemistry, moisture re gimes, so il microbio mes, compactio n or erosion due to fen ces. • Fence effects on vegetatio n co mposition , co nditio n, an d successio n. • Fen ce effects on herbiv ory patterns (wild and do mestic), seed dispersal, nutrient flow, or other ecosystem pro ce sse s. Influe nce of land ten ure systems on fe nce use and de sign . • Influence of values, traditions, and perceptio ns of wildlife on the adoption of co nserv ation projects. • Social/cultural factors that contribute to wildlife conflict. • Social and ec onomic ince ntives, risks , a nd r ewards of ado pting con servatio n fe nce syste ms. • Modes of co llabo ra tion and dissemin ation that pro mote co nservation fe nce projects. • V alu e of so cializing project co sts (partn erships, cost - share, volu nteer labor). • Test m appi ng meth ods usi ng dr one technology, or high -resol utio n aeri al im agery with aut omated GIS processes. • M odel fence types using l and tenure r ec ords . • Us e trail cameras to assess wildlif e and livestock fence interacti ons and resp onse to modificati ons . • Co nd uct cost/be nefit a nalyses of various designs i ncorporati ng ec ological and biological factors . • Us e trail cameras to assess wildlife -fence i nt eractio ns . • Use sp atial fence lay er d at a as a co vari ate in habit at and distribution modeling . • Compare stress and e nergy levels (e .g., c ortic osteroid le vels, fat reserves) between individuals occ upying areas with different fe nce densities or types. • Conduct tra nsects to assess mortality rates. • Ass ess f en ce de nsity and its relati onship to rang e -wide population dem ographics, size, connectivity (genetic rel atedness and movement rates) . • Use spatial fence l ayer dat a as a c ovari ate in habit at a nd mo vement modeli ng and assess influence of fences on migration pathw ays . • Utilize data from trail cameras to assess effects on m ultiple species or ecol ogical pr ocesses . • Ass ess soil ch aracteristics along and away fr om f enc e lines to determine similarities and differences • Assess vegetation comm unity types al ong and away from fence lines. • Assess impacts of d omestic and wild a nimals along fe nce lines towards chan ges in s oil compositi on, seed dispersal, or n utrient flow. • Use surveys, pu blic and privat e meetings with local stak eholders an d co mmun ity lea ders to understand local co ncerns and collabora tive oppo rtun ities. • Assess stake ho lder per spectives on wildlife -f ence inter actions and co nse rva tion fe nce projec ts. • Ev aluate efficacy of outreach and co st -share systems . • Asse ss co st -benefit of roa dway fen cing in terms of ins uranc e sav in gs. • Ability to map, quantify, and ev alu ate fe nce infr astruct ures f or resear ch and cons ervation. • Improved desig ns to sustain wildlife and ecosyst ems while mai ntai ning fence purp ose. • Adapt fe nce systems to red uce uni nte nded conseq uences. • Red uce the number of fe nces erected to co ntrol livestock . • Designs and mitigati ons to ease animal crossing, mo vem ents, and reduce biological impa cts. • Designs a nd mitigations that reduce impacts on p op ulati ons . • Alter fence systems to mitigate problem desig ns and l ocatio ns . • Ad apt fence systems and infrastructure to sustain the ecol ogical commu nity a nd fu nctions. • Mitigate soil imp acts; sustain healthy s oils. • Sustain ec osystem functions, native species, a nd he althy vegetation commu nities . • Mitigatio ns to s ustain or restore ecosystem processes. • Incorporate loc al knowledge and p erceptions and develop appropri ate pr ojects to bal anc e c onser vation with l ocal values and economies . • Incre ase adoption of fenc e alte rnativ es to b enefit wildlife and ecosystems. A.F. Jakes et aL ATTACHMENT 2 Biological Conservation 227 (2018) 310-318 combining field surveys with a synthesis of existing spatial data sets (Poor et al., 2014). An effort to map fence lines across southern Alberta with remote imagery was found to be 94% accurate, but the process was tedious and time consuming (Seward et al., 2012). In some land- scapes, fence type and condition can be modeled based on land tenure records combined with ground-truthing (Poor et al., 2014). However, fence condition, permeability, and extent changes over time with maintenance and land use, so the shelf life of mapping data must be considered when weighing methods, effort, and accuracy. Any ex- amination of fences across landscapes will greatly benefit from the development of more efficient methods and use of new technologies, such as drones or high resolution imagery (Table 2), to quantify and evaluate fence infrastructure at large scales for geospatial analysis. Empirical studies of specific fence designs and their effects on wildlife are relatively sparse (Karhu and Anderson, 2006; Stull et al., 2011; Van Lanen et al., 2017; Burkholder et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2018). The basic specifications for wildlife -friendlier fence designs were conceived for adult ungulates in North America (Karsky, 1988) but do not account for the reduced abilities of juvenile, pregnant, stressed, or injured individuals, other species (e.g., large carnivores), or the effects of seasonal changes (e.g., snow, flooding) or topography (e.g., terrain, slope). Fence modifications to benefit multiple species must be tailored to the fence purpose, context, species present, and ecosystem (Paige, 2012, 2015). Practical testing of various types of fences, gates, wildlife crossings, funneling techniques, and other modifications intended for conservation objectives will provide insight into their efficacy and how wildlife respond. The use of non-invasive methods such as trail cameras can facilitate evaluation of various fence modifications and their effi- cacy in creating passage for wildlife (Table 2). 4.2. Biological and ecological effects of fences Fence impacts on wildlife are usually observed at the individual or local group level, such as individual mortalities or barriers to herd movements. Some of these impacts may be dismissed as incon- sequential, especially since rates (i.e., mortality) are usually unknown. These impacts are often dismissed because scientists, managers, and policymakers are most concerned with populations, meta —populations, and ecosystems for wildlife management and conservation. Unless cu- mulative effects of fences can be measured and understood, they are not addressed. Only a few studies have examined the influence of fences at large enough scales to generate meaningful knowledge at population levels. For example, both Rey et al. (2012), and Harrington and Conover (2006) measured mortality due to wire fences at landscape scales, finding dramatically higher annual mortality rates for juveniles versus adults. Fences are a major source of mortality for grouse species in Europe and North America and may be a factor driving population declines (Baines and Andrew, 2003; Wolfe et al., 2007; Stevens et al., 2013). In contrast, a survey of lions (Panthera leo) in 11 African coun- tries showed populations were significantly closer to carrying capacities within fenced reserves than in unfenced regions (Packer et al., 2013). However, these studies only scratch the surface. There are ample opportunities to examine fence influences on wildlife populations and ecosystems, including individual -level effects that may accumulate to influence population size, alter movements across landscapes, and af- fect vegetation communities or ecosystem processes such as nutrient flow. Many fence effects on individuals (e.g., injury, energy cost, or loss of fitness from navigating fences) are difficult to measure, which makes it difficult to determine if they scale up to influence population de- mographics. Research that examines cumulative effects of these impacts on populations across landscapes is sparse to nonexistent. Improved methods are needed to detect and quantify potential population con- sequences (Table 2). Fences often induce a behavioral response in wildlife and we lack significant information on these responses —that is, how animals per- ceive, physically negotiate, and habituate to fences. A handful of studies have documented particular species' reaction to fences or fence mod- ifications (e.g., Asian elephants (Elephas maximus, Chelliah et al., 2010), greater sage -grouse (Stevens et al., 2013), mule deer (Odocoileus hemi- onus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus, Burkholder et al., 2018), and pronghorn (Jones et al., 2018; Seidler et al., 2018)). How- ever, the cumulative stress and behavioral outcomes from crossing multiple fences on a landscape is poorly understood. Most of our un- derstanding of animal perception and interaction with fences is built on anecdote rather than empirical study. Advances in technology such as camera traps or fine temporal -scale GPS collars with accelerometers can be used to assess behavioral interactions of wildlife with fences (Table 2). Fences for mitigation efforts may benefit some species at the ex- pense of others or the larger ecosystem. For example, wildlife crossing structures and associated barrier fencing significantly reduces wildlife - vehicle collisions but animals must learn the location of crossing op- portunities and that it is safe to use them (Huijser et al., 2016). It may also cause stress on animals as they learn to negotiate novel structures (Seidler et al., 2018). Investigating species' sensitivity to barriers and stress and whether such stress compromises fitness or has population - level effects will provide insight to improve conservation fence systems (Table 2). Biodiversity and ecological processes (e.g., herbivory, seed dis- persal, nutrient flow) can be affected by the shift, loss of, or increase of animal (both domestic and wildlife) movements that are shaped by fence infrastructures (Todd and Hoffman, 1999; Wu et al., 2009; Augustine et al., 2013). However, there is an immense lack of under- standing relative to fence effects on community or ecological systems. Research can identify and target movement bottlenecks, barriers, and critical habitats at meaningful scales for functional and resilient eco- systems, which will inform biodiversity conservation. More studies using vegetation transects and soil assessments at and away from fences will provide information on the role fencing plays in shaping vegetation communities, moisture regimes, and nutrient cycling (Table 2). 4.3. Human dimensions of fence ecology Often the easiest aspect of a conservation problem is the technical solution and the most difficult is the human factor. Conservation is a social issue, and empirical study of the social aspects of fence ecology can help improve outreach, innovation, adoption, and conservation. In any given cultural context, a better understanding of local norms, va- lues, perceptions, and social influencers can provide insight into how best to implement conservation projects (Mulder and Coppolillo, 2005; St John et al., 2010). Cultural, economic, and political factors influence the use of a particular fence system and the adoption of innovations for conserva- tion. Land tenure systems, cultural traditions, experiences with wildlife conflict, and personal and community values regarding various species all feed into the acceptance of change for conservation. Cultural per- ceptions, values, and status of early adopters influence how conserva- tion practices are understood and accepted (Mulder and Coppolillo, 2005). Conceptual application of social science research, such as dif- fusion of innovation theory, can provide a framework for examining the technical, cultural, and political characteristics that shape the adoption of conservation practices (Mascia and Mills, 2018). Understanding the costs and benefits to stakeholders, individual or community autonomy and control, and the influence of peers and au- thority figures can provide insights into how fence innovations are perceived and adopted (St John et al., 2010; Knight et al., 2011). So- cializing costs through partnerships and incentives can accelerate the acceptance of conservation projects in a community (Mascia and Mills, 2018). Some government agencies and conservation organizations offer incentives to cover the cost of fence materials or labor for conservation projects, yet there is rarely follow-up monitoring of such programs to determine if they achieve their objectives. Moreover, government 316 A.F. Jakes et aL ATTACHMENT 2 Biological Conservation 227 (2018) 310-318 incentive programs can at times work at cross-purposes. For example, a federal agricultural program in the United States heavily subsidizes pasture cross -fencing for livestock distribution, resulting in a pro- liferation of fencing in rangelands inconsistent with incentives from the same agency that promote conservation fence and habitat projects for wildlife (Toombs and Roberts, 2009; Knight et al., 2011). Ultimately, a deeper understanding of how to navigate the human dimensions of wildlife -fence issues is essential to implementing effective and suc- cessful conservation practices. Insights can be gained through stake- holder surveys and interviews that assess perspectives on wildlife -fence interactions and adoption of, or resistance to, conservation fence pro- jects (Table 2). 5. Conclusions Whether a fence is a tool or a problem for wildlife and ecosystem conservation is in the eye of the beholder. A landholder, producer, wildlife/habitat manager, or researcher will each have a different perspective on the utility and risk of fences for conservation. Fence ecology must be based on ecological concepts and science -driven results from empirical data. It must seek solutions to help balance the social needs for fencing with conserving wildlife and natural ecosystems. As a result, fence ecology can provide a clearer understanding of fence functions and impacts so that stakeholders can communicate effec- tively. The impact of fences on wildlife and ecosystem processes is of global concern, but the study of fence influences on wildlife and ecological systems is in its infancy. Fences are largely taken for granted, which has led to their "invisibility" and lack of attention in conservation biology, leaving us with little empirical data regarding their effects on wildlife. Moreover, we have been left without a common understanding among stakeholders regarding the pros and cons of fencing. A more holistic understanding of fence ecology will open extensive opportunities to shape conservation at broad scales. Innovative research will provide better understanding of the cumulative and broad -scale influences of fences on populations and ecosystem processes, and help develop de- signs and mitigations that reduce fence impacts. Empirical study of fence ecology will advance conservation and management, with the ultimate goal of restoring functioning, intact, and resilient landscapes. We hope to inspire fellow scientists and conservationists around the world to "see" and study fences as a pervasive infrastructure that has profound influence on wildlife and ecosystems. Acknowledgements We thank J. Carlson, M. Chitwood, T. Kelley, P. Landres, R. van der Ree, K. Soanes, and B. Walder for information, review and insightful discussions of drafts of this essay and C. Brunes for graphic support. We thank J. Millspaugh, L. Coccoli and the Boone and Crockett Club for providing space at the Elmer E. Rasmuson Wildlife Conservation Center on the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Ranch for the authors to develop the ideas in this essay. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not -for-profit sec- tors. References Allen, G.T., Ramirez, P., 1990. A review of bird deaths on barb -wire fences. Wilson Bull. 102 (3), 553-558. Augustine, D.J., Milchunas, D.G., Derner, J.D., 2013. Spatial redistribution of nitrogen by cattle in semiarid rangeland. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 66 (1), 56-62. Baines, D., Andrew, M., 2003. Marking of deer fences to reduce frequency of collisions by woodland grouse. Biol. Conserv. 110 (2003), 169-176. Baudry, J., Bunce, R.G.H., Burel, F., 2000. Hedgerows: an international perspective on the origin, function and management. J. Environ. Manag. 60 (1), 7-22. Beckmann, J.P., Clevenger, A.P., Huijser, M.P., Hilty, J.A. (Eds.), 2010. Safe Passages: Highways, Wildlife, and Habitat Connectivity. Island Press. Benitez -Lopez, A., Alkemade, R., Verweij, P.A., 2010. The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta -analysis. Biol. Conserv. 143 (6), 1307-1316. Berger, J., 2004. The last mile: how to sustain long-distance migration in mammals. Conserv. Biol. 18 (2), 320-331. Bevanger, K., 1998. Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electricity power lines: a review. BioL Conserv. 86, 67-76. Booth, C., 2007. Barbed wire action plan. https://www.wildlifefriendlyfencing.com/ WFF/This=action.plan_files/action_plan.pdf/, Accessed date: 15 May 2018. Burkholder, E., Jakes, A.F., Jones, P.F., Hebblewhite, M., Bishop, C.J., 2018. To jump or not to jump: mule deer and white-tailed deer fence crossing decisions. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 42 (3), 420-429. Chelliah, K., Kannan, G., Kundu, S., Abilash, N., Madhusudan, A., Baskaran, N., Sukumar, R., 2010. Testing the efficacy of a chili -tobacco rope fence deterrent against crop - raiding elephants. Curr. Sci. 99 (9), 1239-1243. Cornwall, W., 2016. To save caribou, Alberta wants to fence them in. Science 353 (6297), 333. Dupuis-Desormeaux, M., Davidson, Z., Mwololo, M., Kisio, E., MacDonald, S.E., 2016. Usage of specialized fence -gaps in a black rhinoceros conservancy in Kenya. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 46 (1), 22-32. Fynn, R.W.S., Augustine, D.J., Peel, M.J.S., de Garine-Wichatitsky, M., 2016. Strategic management of livestock to improve biodiversity conservation in African savannahs: a conceptual basis for wildlife -livestock coexistence. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 388-397. Harrington, J.L., Conover, M.R., 2006. Characteristics of ungulate behavior and mortality associated with wire fences. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34 (5), 1295-1305. Hayward, M.W., Kerley, G.I.H., 2009. Fencing for conservation: restriction of evolu- tionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biol. Conserv. 142 (1), 1-13. Hilty, J.A., Lidicker Jr., W.Z., Merenlender, A.M., 2006. Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscape for Biodiversity Conservation. Island Press. Hobbs, R.J., Galvin, K.A., Stokes, C.J., Lockett, J.M., Ash, A.J., Boone, R.B., Reid, R.S., Thorton, P.K., 2008. Fragmentation of rangelands: implications for humans, animals and landscapes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 18 (4), 776-785. Homyack, J.D., Giuliano, W.M., 2002. Effect of streambank fencing on herpetofauna in pasture stream zones. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 30 (2), 361-369. Huijser, M.P., Fairbank, E.R., Camel -Means, W., Graham, J., Watson, V., Basting, P., Becker, D., 2016. Effectiveness of short sections of wildlife fencing and crossing structures along highways in reducing wildlife -vehicle collisions and providing safe crossing opportunities for large mammals. Biol. Conserv. 197, 61-68. Huygens, O.C., Hayashi, H., 1999. Using electric fences to reduce Asiatic black bear de- predation in Nagano prefecture, central Japan. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27 (4), 959-964. Ito, T.Y., Lhagvasuren, B., Tsunekawa, A., Shinoda, M., Takatsuki, S., Buuveibaatar, B., Chimeddorj, B., 2013. Fragmentation of the habitat of wild ungulates by anthro- pogenic barriers in Mongolia. PLoS ONE 8 (2) (p.e0056995). Jaeger, J.A.G., Fahrig, L., 2004. Effects of road fencing on population persistence. Conserv. Biol. 18 (6), 1651-1657. Jakes, A.F., Gates, C.C., DeCesare, N.J., Jones, P.F., Goldberg, J.F., Kunkel, K., Hebblewhite, M., 2018. Classifying the migration behaviors of pronghorn on their northern range. J. Wildl. Manag. 82 (6), 1229-1242. Johnson, C.J., Boyce, M.S., Case, R.L., Cluff, H.D., Gan, R.J., Gunn, A., Mulders, R., 2005. Cumulative effects of human developments on arctic wildlife. WildL Monogr. 60 (36 pp.). Johnson, C.N., Isaac, J.L., Fisher, D.O., 2007. Rarity of a top predator triggers continent - wide collapse of mammal prey: dingoes and marsupials in Australia. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 247 (1608), 341-346. Jones, P.F., 2014. Scarred for life: the other side of the fence debate. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 8 (1), 150-154. Jones, P.F., Jakes, A.F., Eacker, D.R., Seward, B.C., Hebblewhite, M., Martin, B.H., 2018. Evaluating responses by pronghorn to fence modifications across the northern Great Plains. WildL Soc. Bull. 42 (2), 225-236. Karhu, R., Anderson, S., 2006. The effect of high -tensile electric fence designs on big - game and livestock movements. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34 (2), 293-299. Karsky, R., 1988. Fences. Publication #8824 2803. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center, Missoula, MT (210 pp.). King, L.E., Lala, F., Nzumu, H., Mwambingu, E., Douglas-Hamiliton, I., 2017. Beehive fences as a multidimensional conflict -mitigation tool for farmers coexisting with elephants. Conserv. Biol. 31 (4), 743-752. Knight, K.B., Toombs, T.P., Denier, J.D., 2011. Cross -fencing on private US rangelands: financial costs and producer risks. Rangelands 33 (2), 41-44. Kotchemidova, C., 2008. The culture of the fence: artifacts and meanings. Counterblast J. Cult. Commun. 2, 1-4. Lasky, J.R., Jetz, W., Keitt, T.H., 2011. Conservation biogeography of the US -Mexico border: a transcontinental risk assessment of barriers to animal dispersal. Divers. Distrib. 17 (4), 673-687. Lavelle, M.J., Fischer, J.W., Hygnstrom, S.E., White, J.J., Hildreth, A.M., Phillips, G.E., Vercauteren, K.C., 2010. Response of deer to containment by a poly -mesh fence for mitigating disease outbreaks. J. Wildl. Manag. 74 (7), 1620-1625. Leblond, M., Ouellet, J., Poulin, M., Courtois, R., Fortin, J., 2007. Electric fencing as a measure to reduce moose -vehicle collisions. J. Wildl. Manag. 71 (5), 1695-1703. Lemly, A.D., Kingsford, R.T., Thompson, J.R., 2000. Irrigated agriculture and wildlife conservation: conflict on a global scale. Environ. Manag. 25 (5), 485-512. Leu, M., Hanser, S.E., Knick, S.T., 2008. The human footprint in the West: a large-scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts. Ecol. Appl. 18 (5), 1119-1139. Li, L., Fassnacht, F.E., Storch, L, Biirgi, M., 2017. Land -use regime shift triggered the recent degradation of alpine pastures in Nyanpo Yutse of the eastern Qinghai -Tibetan Plateau. Landsc. Ecol. 32 (11), 2187-2203. Linnell, J.D.C., Trouwborst, A., Boitani, L., Kaczensky, P., Huber, D., Reljic, S., Kusak, J., Majic, A., Skrbinsek, T., Potocnik, H., Hayward, M.W., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 317 A.F. Jakes et aL ATTACHMENT 2 Biological Conservation 227 (2018) 310-318 Buuveibaatar, B., Olson, K.A., Badamjav, L., Bischof, R., Zuther, S., Breitenmoser, U., 2016. Border security fencing and wildlife: the end of the transboundary paradigm in Eurasia. PLoS Biol. 14 (6), e1002483. Liu, J.S., 2009. Barbed Wire: The Fence That Changed the West. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Layschal, M., Bracher, P.K., Pilgaard, J., Amoke, I., Odingo, A., Thuo, A., Svenning, J.C., 2017. Fencing bodes a rapid collapse of the unique Greater Mara ecosystem. Sci. Rep. 7 (41450). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41450. Mascia, M.B., Mills, M., 2018. When conservation goes viral: the diffusion of innovative biodiversity conservation policies and practices. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12442. https:// doi.org/10.1111/con1.12442. Mbaiwa, J.E., Mbaiwa, O.I., 2006. The effects of veterinary fences on wildlife populations in Okavango Delta, Botswana. Int. J. Wilderness 12 (3), 7-23 (41). Miller, J.J., Chanasyk, D.S., Curtis, T., Willms, W.D., 2010. Influence of streambank fencing on the environmental quality of cattle -excluded pastures. J. Environ. Qual. 39 (3), 991-1000. Mulder, M.B., Coppolillo, P., 2005. Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economic, and Culture. Princeton Univ. Press. Newsome, A.E., Catling, P.C., Cooke, B.D., Smyth, R., 2001. Two ecological universes separated by the dingo barrier fence in semi -arid Australia: interactions between landscapes, herbivory and camivory, with and without dingoes. Rangel. J. 23 (1), 71-98. Packer, C., Loveridge, A., Canney, S., Caro, T., Garnett, S.T., Pfeifer, M., Zander, K.K., Swanson, A., MacNulty, D., Balme, G., Bauer, H., Begg, C.M., Begg, K.S., Bhalla, S., Bissett, C., Bodasing, T., Brink, H., Burger, A., Burton, A.C., Clegg, B., Dell, S., Delsink, A., Dickerson, T., Dloniak, S.M., Druce, D., Frank, L, Funston, P., Gichohi, N., Groom, R., Hanekom, C., Heath, B., Hunter, L., DeIongh, H.H., Joubert, C.J., Kasiki, S.M., Kissui, B., Knocker, W., Leathem, B., Lindsey, P.A., Maclennan, S.D., McNutt, J.W., Miller, S.M., Naylor, S., Nel, P., Ng'weno, C., Nicholls, K., Ogutu, J.O., Okot-Omoya, E., Patterson, B.D., Plumptre, A., Salerno, J., Skinner, K., Slotow, R., Sogbohossou, E.A., Stratford, K.J., Winterbach, C., Winterbach, H., Polasky, S., 2013. Conserving large carnivores: dollars and fence. Ecol. Lett. 16 (5), 635-641. Paige, C., 2012. A Landowner's Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences: How to Build Fence With Wildlife in Mind, Second edition. Private Land Technical Assistance Program, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana. Paige, C., 2015. A Wyoming Landowner's Handbook to Fences and Wildlife: Practical Tips for Fencing With Wildlife in Mind, Second edition. Wyoming Wildlife Foundation, Laramie, Wyoming. Pfeifer, M., Packer, C., Burton, A.C., Garnett, S.T., Loveridge, A.J., MacNulty, D., Plaits, P.J., 2014. In defense of fences. Science 345 (6195), 389. Poor, E.E., Jakes, A., Loucks, C., Suitor, M., 2014. Modeling fence location and density at a regional scale for use in wildlife management. PLoS ONE 9 (1), e83912. Reid, R.S., Thornton, P.K., Kruska, R.L., 2004. Loss and fragmentation of habitat for pastoral people and wildlife in east Africa: concepts and issues. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 21 (3), 171-181. Rey, A., Novaro, A.J., Guichon, M.L., 2012. Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) mortality by en- tanglement in wire fences. J. Nat. Conserv. 20 (5), 280-283. Ringma, J.L., Wintle, B., Fuller, R.A., Fisher, D., Bode, M., 2017. Minimizing species extinctions through strategic planning for conservation fencing. Conserv. Biol. 31 (5), 1029-1038. Sanderson, E.W., Jaiteh, M., Levy, M.A., Redford, K.H., Wannebo, A.V., Woolmer, G., 2002. The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52 (10), 891-904. Sawyer, H., Kauffman, M.J., Middleton, A.D., Morrison, T.A., Nielson, R.A., Wyckoff, T.B., 2013. A framework for understanding semi -permeable barrier effects on migratory ungulates. J. Appl. Ecol. 50 (1), 68-78. Seidler, R.G., Long, R.A., Berger, J., Bergen, S., Beckmann, J.P., 2015. Identifying im- pediments to long-distance mammal migrations. Conserv. Biol. 29 (1), 99-109. Seidler, R.G., Green, D.S., Beckmann, J.P., 2018. Highways, crossing structures and risk: behaviors of greater Yellowstone pronghorn elucidate efficacy of road mitigation. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 15, e00416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018. Seward, B., Jones, P.F., Hurley, T.A., 2012. Where are all the fences: mapping fences from satellite imagery. In: Proceeding of the Pronghorn Workshop 25, pp. 92-98. St John, F.A.V., Edwards -Jones, G., Jones, J.P.G., 2010. Conservation and human beha- viour: lessons from social psychology. Wildl. Res. 37, 658-667. Stevens, B.S., Naugle, D.E., Dennis, B., Connelly, J.W., Griffiths, T., Reese, K.P., 2013. Mapping sage -grouse fence -collision risk: spatially explicit models for targeting conservation implementation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 37 (2), 409-415. Stull, D.W., Gulsby, W.D., Martin, J.A., D'Angelo, G.J., Gallagher, G.R., Osborn, D.A., Warren, R.J., Miller, K.V., 2011. Comparison of fencing designs for excluding deer from roadways. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 5 (1), 47-57. Taylor, A.R., Knight, R.L., 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecol. Appl. 13 (4), 951-963. Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, L, With, K.A., 2006. Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. In: Crooks, K.R., Sanjayan, M. (Eds.), Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge University Press, pp. 29-43. Todd, S.W., Hoffman, M.T., 1999. A fence -line contrast reveals effects of heavy grazing on plant diversity and community composition in Namaqualand, South Africa. Plant Ecol. 142 (1-2), 169-178. Toombs, T.P., Roberts, M.G., 2009. Are Natural Resources Conservation Service range management investments working at cross-purposes with wildlife habitat goals on western United States rangelands? Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 62 (4), 351-355. Trombulak, S.C., Frissell, C.A., 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conserv. Biol. 14 (1), 18-30. Van Lanen, N.J., Green, A.W., Gorman, T.R., Quattrini, L.A., Pavlacky Jr., D.C., 2017. Evaluating efficacy of fence markers in reducing greater sage -grouse collisions with fencing. Biol. Conserv. 213, 70-83. VerCauteren, K.C., Lavelle, M.J., Seward, N.W., Fischer, J.W., Phillips, G.E., 2007. Fence - line contact between wild and farmed cervids in Colorado: potential for disease transmission. J. Wildl. Manag. 71 (5), 1594-1602. Williamson, D., Williamson, J., 1984. Botswana's fences and the depletion of the Kalahari's wildlife. Oryx 18 (4), 218-222. Wolfe, D.H., Patten, M.A., Shochat, E., Pruett, C.L., Sherrod, S.K., 2007. Causes and pattern of mortality in lesser prairie -chickens Tympanuchus pallidicinctus and im- plications for management. Wildl. Biol. 13 (spl), 95-104. Woodroffe, R., Hedges, S., Durant, S.M., 2014. To fence or not to fence. Science 344 (6179), 46-48. Woods, C.L., Cardehis, C.L., Scull, P., Wassie, A., Baez, M., Klepeis, P., 2017. Stone walls and sacred forest conservation in Ethiopia. Biodivers. Conserv. 26 (1), 209-221. Wu, G. -L, Du, G. -Z., Liu, Z. -H., Thirgood, S., 2009. Effect of fencing and grazing on a Kobresia-dominated meadoGiulw in the Qinghai -Tibetan plateau. Plant Soil 319 (1-2), 115-126. Young, L.C., VanderWerf, E.A., Lohr, M.T., Miller, C.J., Titmus, A.J., Peters, D., Wilson, L., 2013. Multi -species predator eradication within a predator -proof fence at Ka'ena Point, Hawaii. Biol. Invasions 15 (12), 2627-2638. 318 ATTACHMENT 3 J Anim Sci. 2004;82 E-Suppl:E255-263. Water quality and the grazing animal. Hubbard RKI, Newton GL, Hill GM. Abstract Grazing animals and pasture production can affect water quality both positively and negatively. Good management practices for forage production protect the soil surface from erosion compared with conventionally produced crops. Grazing animals and pasture production can negatively affect water quality through erosion and sediment transport into surface waters, through nutrients from urine and feces dropped by the animals and fertility practices associated with production of high -quality pasture, and through pathogens from the wastes. Erosion and sediment transport is primarily associated with high -density stocking and/or poor forage stands. The two nutrients of primary concern relating to animal production are N and P. Nitrogen is of concern because high concentrations in drinking water in the NO(3) form cause methemoglobinemia (blue baby disease), whereas other forms of N (primarily nitrite, NO(2)) are considered to be potentially carcinogenic. Phosphorus in the PO(4) form is of concern because it causes eutrophication of surface water bodies. The effect of grazing animals on soil and water quality must be evaluated at both the field and watershed scales. Such evaluation must account for both direct input of animal wastes from the grazing animal and also applications of inorganic fertilizers to produce quality pastures. Watershed -scale studies have primarily used the approach of nutrient loadings per land area and nutrient removals as livestock harvests. A number of studies have measured nutrient loads in surface runoff from grazed land and compared loads with other land uses, including row crop agriculture and forestry. Concentrations in discharge have been regressed against standard grazing animal units per land area. Watersheds with concentrated livestock populations have been shown to discharge as much as 5 to 10 times more nutrients than watersheds in cropland or forestry. The other major water quality concern with grazing animals is pathogens, which may move from the wastes into surface water bodies or ground water. Major surface water quality problems associated with pathogens have been associated with grazing animals, particularly when they are not fenced out from streams and farm ponds. This paper presents an overview of water quality issues relating to grazing animals. OPEN a ACCESS Freely available online ATTACHMENT 4 te•PLOS ONE Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation on National Forest Lands Leslie M. Roche'*, Lea Kromschroeder', Edward R. Atwill2, Randy A. Dahlgren3, Kenneth W. Tate' 1 Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America, 2 School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California University of California, Davis, California, United States of America, 3 Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America Abstract There is substantial concern that microbial and nutrient pollution by cattle on public lands degrades water quality, threatening human and ecological health. Given the importance of clean water on multiple -use landscapes, additional research is required to document and examine potential water quality issues across common resource use activities. During the 2011 grazing -recreation season, we conducted a cross sectional survey of water quality conditions associated with cattle grazing and/or recreation on 12 public lands grazing allotments in California. Our specific study objectives were to 1) quantify fecal indicator bacteria (FIB; fecal coliform and E. coli), total nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, total phosphorus, and soluble -reactive phosphorus concentrations in surface waters; 2) compare results to a) water quality regulatory benchmarks, b) recommended maximum nutrient concentrations, and c) estimates of nutrient background concentrations; and 3) examine relationships between water quality, environmental conditions, cattle grazing, and recreation. Nutrient concentrations observed throughout the grazing -recreation season were at least one order of magnitude below levels of ecological concern, and were similar to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) estimates for background water quality conditions in the region. The relative percentage of FIB regulatory benchmark exceedances widely varied under individual regional and national water quality standards. Relative to USEPA's national E. coli FIB benchmarks -the most contemporary and relevant standards for this study -over 90% of the 743 samples collected were below recommended criteria values. FIB concentrations were significantly greater when stream flow was low or stagnant, water was turbid, and when cattle were actively observed at sampling. Recreation sites had the lowest mean FIB, total nitrogen, and soluble - reactive phosphorus concentrations, and there were no significant differences in FIB and nutrient concentrations between key grazing areas and non -concentrated use areas. Our results suggest cattle grazing, recreation, and provisioning of clean water can be compatible goals across these national forest lands. Citation: Roche LM, Kromschroeder L, Atwill ER, Dahlgren RA, Tate KW (2013) Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation on National Forest Lands. PLoS ONE 8(6): e68127. dot:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127 Editor A. Mark Ibekwe, U. S. Salinity Lab, United States of America Received October 30, 2012; Accepted May 30, 2013; Published June 27, 2013 Copyright: © 2013 Roche et al. This is an open -access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: This research was funded by USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. The funders did provide field data collection assistance. The funders had no role in data analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. * E-mail: Imroche@ucdavis.edu Introduction Livestock grazing allotments on public lands managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS) provide critical forage supporting ranching enterprises and local economies [1-3]. Surface waters on public lands are used for human recreation and consumption, and serve as critical aquatic habitat. Concerns have been raised that microbial and nutrient pollution by livestock grazing on public lands degrades water quality, threatening human and ecological health [4-7]. Some of the contaminants of concern include fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), fecal coliform (FC) and Eschezichia colt (E. colz), as well as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). FIB are regulated in an attempt to safeguard public health from waterborne pathogens such as Cryptosporidium parvum and E. coli 0157:H7 and human enteroviruses including adenoviruses and coliphages [8]. Concerns about elevated N and P concentrations in surface water stem from the potential for eutrophication of aquatic systems [9]. The USFS must balance the many resource use activities occurring on national forests (e.g., livestock grazing, recreation). National forests in the western United States support 1.8 million livestock annually, provisioning 6.1 million animal unit months (AUM) of forage supply allocated through 5,220 grazing permits held by private ranching enterprises [10]. In California (USFS Region 5), 500 active grazing allotments annually supply 408,000 AUM of forage to support 97,000 livestock across 3.2 million ha on 17 national forests. With an annual recreating population of over 26 million [11], California's national forests are at the crossroad of a growing debate about the compatibility of livestock grazing with other activities (e.g., recreation) dependent upon clean, safe water. There is a paucity of original research on water quality conditions on public grazing lands, and the conclusions of these reports are often inconsistent. For example, in California's Sierra Nevada, Derlet and Carlson [6] found surface water samples collected below horse and cattle grazing areas on USFS- administered lands were more likely to have detectable E. coli than non -grazed sites in national parks. Derlet et al. [12] reported algal coverage, algal -E. tali associations, and detection of waterborne E. coli to be greatest at sites below cattle grazing and lowest below sites experiencing little to no human or cattle activity, with human recreation sites being intermediate. Also in the central PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 1 June 2013 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 6 1 e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands Sierra Nevada, Myers and Whited [13] found FIB increased in surface waters below key grazing areas on USFS allotments following the arrival of cattle. However, Roche et al. [14] found no evidence of degradation of Yosemite toad breeding pool water quality in key grazing areas on three allotments in the Sierra National Forest of central California. Examining land -use and water quality associations in watersheds throughout the Cosumnes River Basin, Ahearn et al. [15] also reported water quality conditions in upper forested watersheds, which include USFS grazing allotments, to be well below levels of ecological concern. The purpose of this study was to quantify microbial pollutant and nutrient concentrations during the summer cattle grazing and recreation season on 12 representative allotments across 5 national forests in northern California. Specific objectives were to 1) quantify FC, E. coli, total nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, total phosphorus, and soluble -reactive phosphate concentrations in San Francisco 0 15 :30 60 v Kilometers surface waters; 2) compare these results to a) water quality regulatory benchmarks, b) maximum nutrient concentrations recommended to avoid eutrophication, and c) estimates of nutrient background concentrations for this region; and 3) examine relationships between water quality, environmental conditions, and cattle grazing and recreation (i.e., resource uses). Methods Ethics Statement Permission for site access was granted by the US Forest Service, and no permits were required. Study Area This cross sectional, longitudinal water quality survey was completed across 12 grazing allotments on USFS-managed public 9 10 11 12 as Figure 1. The 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments (shaded polygons) in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study of stream water quality between June and November 2011. Unshaded polygons are other U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in the study area. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g001 PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 2 June 2013 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 6 1 e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands Table 1. Concentrations of total nitrogen (TN), nitrate (NO3 N), ammonium (NH4 N), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate (PO4 P) for 743 stream water samples collected across 155 sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California. Median (µg Nutrient Mean' (µg 1.-1) L-1) Maximum (µg L -')Below Detectionb (%) Eutrophication` (µg L ') Backgrounds (ug L ') TN 58±2.7 33 675 5 60-530 NO3 -N 19±0.9 5 221 51 300 5-40 NH4-N 11±0.4 5 146 61 TP 21±2.8 9 1321 32 100 9-32 POq P 7±0.3 5 83 40 50 Published estimates of concentrations of general concern for eutrophication of stream water, and estimates of background concentrations for the study area are provided for context. 'The '±' indicates 1 standard error of the mean. bPercentage of samples below minimum analytical detection limit. Limits were 10 µg L-' for nitrogen and 5 µg L-' for phosphorous. Observations below detection limit were set to one half detection limit (5 µg L-' for nitrogen and 2.5 µg L-' for phosphorus) for calculation of mean and median concentrations. `Concentrations if exceeded indicate potential for eutrophication of streams [38-42]. dEstimated range of background concentrations for the three U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level III sub-ecoregions (5, 9, 78) included in the study [43]. doi:10.1371 /journal.pone.0068127.t001 lands in northern California, USA (Fig. 1). Allotments were selected to represent the diversity of climate, soil, vegetation, water quality regulatory agencies, and resource use activities found across this landscape. The study area ranged from 41°40' to 37°55' N latitude and 123°30' to 120°10' W longitude, and included national forests in the Klamath, Coast, Cascade, and Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges. Allotments were located on the Klamath (Allotments 1, 2), Shasta -Trinity (Allotments 3-6), Plumas (Allotments 7, 8), Tahoe (Allotments 9, 10), and Stanislaus (Allotments 11, 12) National Forests (Fig. 1). The study area totaled approximately1,300 km2 and elevation ranged from 207 to 3,016 m (Table S1). The prevailing climate is Mediterranean with cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. The majority of precipitation falls as snow between December and April, with snow melt generally occurring between May and June. Soils in Allotments 1-2, 5-7, and 11 are dominated by Inceptisols; Allotments 3, 10, and 12 are dominated by Alfisols; Allotment 8 and 9 are dominated by Mollisols; and Allotment 4 is dominated by Andisols [16] (Table Si). All allotments were located in mountainous watersheds with canopy cover of mesic and xeric forests ranging from 9 to 89 and 2 to 93% cover, respectively [17]. Cooler mesic conifer forests were dominated by white fir (Abies concolor), red fir (Abies magnifica), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesiz). The relatively drier xeric conifer forests were dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffieyz). Montane hardwood and shrub cover ranged from 0 to 20%, and grass and forb cover from 1 to 9%. Wet meadows and other riparian plant communities covered 1 to 5% of allotment areas, and were the primary forage source for cattle grazing in these allotments. Grazing Management Cattle grazing management strategies on the study allotments reflect those widely found on western public grazing lands, such as those reviewed in Delcurto et al. [18] and George et al. [19]. Study allotments were grazed with commercial beef cow -calf pairs during the June to November grazing -growing season, following allotment -specific management plans designed to achieve annual herbaceous forage use standards (Table S1). Herbaceous use standards are set as an annual management target to protect ecological condition and function of meadow and riparian sites [20], and vary by national forest, allotment, and meadow ecological conditions [21-27]. Cattle stocking densities ranged from 1 animal unit (-450 kg cow with or without calf) per 18 ha to 1 animal unit per 447 ha (Table Si). Timing of grazing (turn on and tum off dates for cattle), duration of grazing season, and number of cattle are permitted by the USFS on an allotment -specific basis. Animal unit month (AUM) is the mass of forage required to sustain a single animal unit for a 30 -day period, and is the standard metric of grazing pressure on USFS allotments. Foraging, and thus spatial distribution of cattle feces and urine, is non -uniform across these allotments. Areas receiving relatively concentrated use by cattle are referred to as key grazing areas. Key grazing areas are often relatively small, stream -associated mead- ows and riparian areas that are preferentially grazed by cattle due to high forage quantity and quality and drinking water availability. For the most part, allotments are not cross -fenced to create pastures, which would improve grazing distribution. Where cross - fences exist, resulting pasture sizes are large (>2000 ha) with few pastures per allotment (<3). Sample Site Selection Key grazing areas and concentrated recreation areas within 200 m of streams in each allotment were identified and enrolled in the study in collaboration with local USFS managers and forest stakeholders. Water sample collection sites were established in streams immediately above, beside, and/or below sites with each activity to characterize water quality associated with these activities. Recreational activities included developed and undevel- oped campgrounds, swimming -bathing areas, and trailheads used by hikers and recreational horse riders (i.e., pack stock). Key grazing areas were meadows and riparian areas that cattle were known to graze and occupy frequently and/or for extended periods throughout the grazing season. Additional sites were established at perennial flow tributary confluences with no concentrated use activities, enabling us to objectively include comparison sites across allotments with no concentrated grazing and/or recreation. While cattle use was concentrated primarily in key grazing areas, cattle grazing could occur throughout each allotment; therefore, it was not possible to determine water quality conditions in the complete absence of cattle. A total of 155 stream water sample collection sites were identified and sampled monthly throughout the 2011 summer grazing -recreation period. Sample collection sites per allotment ranged from 7 to 18, depending upon the number of key grazing PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 3 June 2013 I Volume 8 I Issue 6 I e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands a) 600 500 400 c% 300 0 200 100 A • 11 11 11 11 • • B •_lir .- I l • li 1 C 11 ' • D ,, • ii ii • T • t fi 0- 600 500 — 400 'J O7 300 z z 200 100 0 June July August September October November 600 500 400 300 z Z 200 0M z 100 0 600 500 400 g 300 200 100 — 0 0 z C ea 0 Figure 2. Overall monthly nitrogen concentrations for 743 stream water samples collected from 155 sample sites across 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study between June and November 2011. (A) Total nitrogen, (B) nitrate (NO3 N), and (C) ammonium (NH4-N) were measured directly. (D) Organic nitrogen represents the difference between total nitrogen and NO3 -N plus NH4-N. Bottom and top of shaded box are the 25th and 75th percentile of data, horizontal line within shaded box is median value, ends of vertical lines are 10th and 90th percentiles of data, and black dots are 5th and 95`h percentiles of data. June n =135; July n =150; August n =178; September n =120; October n =127; November n = 33. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g002 PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 4 June 2013 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 6 1 e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands 200 — c 150 H 50 0 0. 0— A • T t • B / • • I • 1 • w • I T• T — 200 /150 /50 or 0 200 — c 0— • • • —0 / June July August September October November Figure 3. Overall monthly phosphorus concentrations for 743 stream water samples collected from 155 sample sites across 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study between June and November 2011. (A) Total phosphorus (B) and soluble -reactive phosphorus (PO4 P) were measured directly. (C) Non -soluble -reactive phosphorus represents the difference between total phosphorus (measured on unfiltered sample and treated with digesting agent) and soluble -reactive phosphorus. Bottom and top of shaded box are the 25th and 75th percentile of data, horizontal line within shaded box is median value, ends of vertical lines are 10th and 90th percentiles of data, and black dots are 5th and 95th percentiles of data. June n = 135; July n =150; August n= 178; September n= 120; October n =127; November n = 33. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g003 and recreation areas identified, and number of tributary conflu- recreation activities, and 20% were tributary confluences with no ences (Table S1). Sixty-three percent of sample sites were concentrated use activities. associated with key grazing areas, 17% were associated with PLOS ONE www.plosone.org 5 June 2013 Volume 8 Issue 6 e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands 500 E 400 0 0 • w 300 E 0 200 0 U 100 LL 0 A • I � • w w • • • T • B • • • • • June -r • July August September October November 300 250 200 E 0 0 "-0 O u.i 150 100 50 0 Figure 4. Overall monthly (A) fecal coliform and (B) E. coli concentrations for 743 stream water samples collected from 155 sample sites across 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study between June and November 2011. Bottom and top of shaded box are the 25th and 75th percentile of data, horizontal line within shaded box is median value, ends of vertical lines are 10th and 90th percentiles of data, and black dots are 5th and 95th percentiles of data. June n =135; July n =150; August n =178; September n =120; October n =127; November n = 33. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g004 Sample Collection and Analysis In 2011, a total of 743 water samples were collected and analyzed during the June 1 through November 9 study period, which captured the period of overlapping cattle grazing and recreation activities across these allotments. On each allotment, sampling occurred monthly throughout the grazing -recreation season. All sites in an allotment were sampled on the same day. Total sample numbers per allotment ranged from 40 to 88 (Table S1). At the time of sample collection, environmental conditions and/ or resource use activities that may have affected water quality were recorded. Specifically, the following conditions were noted (yes/ no): 1) stagnant -low stream flow (<2 liters per second); 2) turbid stream water; 3) recreation (i.e., swimming -bathing, camping, hiking, fishing, horse riding); 4) cattle; and 5) any activities (i.e., low stream flow, turbid water, precipitation, cattle, recreation users) observed that may affect water quality. If algae, periphyton, or other aquatic autotrophic organisms were present at high to moderate levels (>20% of substrate cover) at time of sampling, then these conditions were recorded. A vertical, depth -integrated stream water collection was made at the stream channel thalweg [28]. Water was collected in sterilized, acid -washed one liter sample containers, which were immediately stored on ice. All samples were analyzed for FC and E. coli within 8 hours of field collection. A 250 ml subsample was taken from each sample, frozen within 24 hours of collection, and processed for nutrient concentrations within 28 days of field collection. FC and E. coli concentrations as colony forming units (cfu) per 100 ml of water sample were determined by direct one step membrane filtration (0.45 µm nominal porosity filter) and incubation (44.5°C, 22-24 hours) on selective agar following standard method SM9222D [29]. Difco mFC Agar (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Spars, MD, USA) and CHROMagar E. coli (Chro- mAgar, Paris, France) were used for FC and E. coli, respectively. Total N (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) were measured after persulfate digestion of non -filtered subsamples following Yu et al. [30] and standard method SM4500-P.D [29], respectively. Concentrations of nitrate (NO3 -N), ammonium (NH4-N), and soluble -reactive phosphorus (PO4 -P) were determined from filtered (0.45 µm nominal porosity filter) subsamples following Doane and Horwath [31], Verdouw et al. [32], and Eaton et al. [29], PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 6 June 2013 I Volume 8 1 Issue 6 I e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands Table 2. Percentage of 743 stream water samples collected across 155 sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California which exceeded water quality benchmarks relevant to the study area, specifically, and the nation, broadly. Overall Key Grazing Area Recreation Area No Concentrated Use Activities Benchmark (% of 743) (% of 462) (% of 125) (% of 156) FC >20 cfu 100 ml -1° 50 48 46 58 FC >50 cfu 100 ml -'b 31 28 27 42 FC >200 cfu 100 ml-'` 10 10 6 13 FC >400 cfu 100 ml -1d 4 5 2 4 E. coli >100 cfu 100 ml -1° 9 8 7 11 E. coli >126 cfu 100 ml -'r 7 7 6 8 *E. coli >190 cfu 100 ml -1° 5 4 4 6 *E. coli >235 cfu 100 ml -1h 3 3 3 4 E. coli >320 cfu 100 ml-ll 2 2 2 2 E. coli >410 cfu 100 ml -'1 1 2 2 1 NO3 -N >300 µ9 CI` 0 0 0 0 TP>100 µg L-'1 2 2 2 <1 PO4 -P>50 µg L-1" 1 0 0 Results are reported for samples collected across all sample sites (overall) as well as for samples collected at sample sites monitored to characterize specific resource use activities across the allotments. *Indicates the most relevant and contemporary standards for this study. °Fecal coliform (FC) benchmark designated by Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) (based on geometric mean (GM) of samples collected over a 30 -day interval) [36]. bFC benchmark designated by North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) (based on a median of samples collected over a 30 -day interval) [37]. `FC benchmark designated by Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (based on GM of samples collected over a 30 -day interval) [35]. dFC benchmark designated by CVRWQCB and NCRWQCB (maximum threshold value not to be exceeded by more than 10% of samples over a 30 -day interval) [35]. eE. coli benchmark designated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based on GM of samples collected over a 30 -day interval). E. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based on GM of samples collected over a 30 -day interval). °E. coil benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM). hE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).' E coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM). E. coil benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).k Maximum concentrations of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3 -N) recommended by USEPA [38,39]. 'Maximum concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) recommended by USEPA [39,40]. 'Maximum concentrations of phosphate as phosphorus (PO4 P) recommended by USEPA [39,41]. doi:10.1371 /jou rnal.pone.0068127.t002 respectively. Minimum detection limits were —10 µg L-1 for TN, NH4-N, and NO3 -N and —5 µg L-1 for TP and PO4 -P. Organic nitrogen (ON) was calculated as TN— [NO3 N+NH4-.N], and non - soluble -reactive PO4 -P was calculated as TP — PO4 -P. Laboratory quality control included replicates, spikes, reference materials, control limits, criteria for rejection, and data validation methods [33]. Data Analysis and Interpretation Descriptive statistics were calculated for the overall dataset as well as by 1) key grazing areas, recreation areas, and sample sites with no concentrated resource use; 2) activity observed at time of sample collection; 3) and month. Results were compared to numerous FIB benchmark concentrations used in the formulation of contemporary microbial water quality standards, maximum nutrient concentrations recommended to avoid eutrophication, and background nutrient concentration estimates for surface waters across the study area. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) nationally recommends and has provided guidance on E. coli FIB -based standards ranging from 100 to 410 cfu 100 m1-1, dependent upon selected illness rate benchmarks and frequency of sample collection over a 30 day period [34]. The study area falls within the jurisdiction of three semi -autonomous California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), each of which has established enforceable standards based on FC benchmarks [35-37] ranging from 20 to 400 cfu 100 m1-1. We report study results relative to each of these benchmarks to allow for comparisons to the various national and regional policies. For our study, which is based on monthly monitoring of multiple land -use activity types and environmental conditions across a broad regional scale (spanning approximate - 1y1;300 km2), the most relevant and contemporary comparisons are the national U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) E. coli single sample -based [8,34] standards of 190 cfu 100 m1-1 (estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators) and 235 cfu 100 ml -1 (estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators). General recommendations for maximum concentrations to prevent eutrophication of streams and rivers are 300, 100, and 50 µg L-1 for NO3 -N, TP, and PO4 -P, respectively [38-42]. The study area is within three USEPA Level III Sub-Ecoregions (5, 9, and 78), and estimated background concentrations for TN, NO3 - N, and TP in these sub -regions range from 60 to 530, 5 to 40, and 9 to 32 µg L-1, respectively [43]. PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 7 June 2013 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 6 1 e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands Table 3. Percentage of 155 stream water sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California which had at least one exceedance of water quality benchmarks relevant to the study area, specifically, and the nation, broadly. Overall Key Grazing Area Recreation Area No Concentrated Use Activities Benchmark (% of 155) (% of 97) (% of 27) (% of 31) FC >20 cfu 100 ml -'a 83 82 81 87 FC >50 cfu 100 ml -'b 65 61 63 81 FC >200 cfu 100 ml-'` 34 36 22 39 FC >400 cfu 100 ml -1d 18 20 11 19 E. coli >100 cfu 100 ml -1e 29 31 22 29 E. coli >126 cfu 100 ml -'f 25 28 19 23 *E. coil >190 cfu 100 ml -'9 17 16 15 19 *E. coli >235 cfu 100 mi.-1h 14 13 11 16 E. coli >320 cfu 100 ml-ll 8 6 11 10 E. coli >410 cfu 100 ml -'1 6 6 7 3 NO3 -N >300 µg CI' 0 0 0 0 TP>100 µg L-'1 8 10 7 3 PO4 -P>50 µg L-1' 2 3 p 0 Results are reported for all sample sites (overall) as well as for sample sites monitored to characterize specific resource use activities across the allotments. *Indicates the most relevant and contemporary standards for this study. aFecal coliform (FC) benchmark designated by Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) (based on geometric mean (GM) of samples collected over a 30 -day interval) [36]. bFC benchmark designated by North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) (based on a median of samples collected over a 30 -day interval) [37]. `FC benchmark designated by Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (based on GM of samples collected over a 30 -day interval) [35]. dFC benchmark designated by CVRWQCB and NCRWQCB (maximum threshold value not to be exceeded by more than 10% of samples over a 30 -day interval) [35]. eE coli benchmark designated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based on GM of samples collected over a 30 -day interval). 'E. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based on GM of samples collected over a 30 -day interval). 9E. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM). hE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).' E. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM). 1E. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).' Maximum concentrations of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3 N) recommended by USEPA [38,39]. 'Maximum concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) recommended by USEPA [39,40]. 'Maximum concentrations of phosphate as phosphorus (PO4 -P) recommended by USEPA [39,41]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t003 At the sample site -scale, we used bivariate generalized linear test for mean FIB and nutrient concentration (dependent variables mixed effects models (GLMMs) and zero -inflated count models to were fecal coliform, E. coli, TN, NO3-N, NH4-N, TP, and PO4-P) Table 4. Mean concentrations for fecal coliform (FC) and E. coli, total nitrogen (TN), nitrate as nitrogen (NO3 -N), ammonium as nitrogen (NH4-N), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate as phosphorus (PO4 -P) for 743 total stream water samples collected across 155 sample locations on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California. Key Grazing Area Recreation Area No Concentrated Use Activities (462 samples) (125 samples) (156 samples) FC (cfu 100 ml -1) E. coli (cfu 100 mI-1) Total N (µg L-1) NO3 -N (µg L-') NH4-N (µg L-') Total P (µg L-1) PO4 -P (µg L-') 87±12 a 42±6 a 61±4 a 17±1 ab 11±0.6 a 24±4 a 7±0.3 a 55±9 b 29±_ 7 b 38±3 b 16±1 a 10±1 a 14±4 a 5±0.2 b 90±12 a 43±8 a 64±-6 a 25±2 b 10±0.7 a 17±2 a 8±0.6 a Results reported are mean concentration for each resource use activity category. The '±' indicates 1 standard error of the mean. Different lower case letters indicate significant (P<0.05 with Bonferroni-correction for multiple comparisons) differences between resource use activity categories. doi:10.1371 /journal.pone.0068127.t004 PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 8 June 2013 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 6 e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands Table 5. Mean concentrations for fecal coliform (FC) and E. coli, total nitrogen (TN), nitrate as nitrogen (NO3 -N), ammonium as nitrogen (NH4-N), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate as phosphorus (PO4 -P) for 743 total stream water samples collected across 155 sample locations on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California. Low Stream Flow' Turbid Waterb Cattle Present` Recreations Activities Observede Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No. Occurrences 51 692 37 706 130 613 28 715 341 402 FC (cfu 100 ml -1) 216±67" 72±7 212±64" 76±8 205±39- 56±5 36±13 84±8 115±161' 54±6 E. coli (cfu 100 ml-') 114±45 35±3 142±56«. 35±3 115±21%~ 24±-3 14±5* 41±4 61±9* 23±3 Total N (µg L-1) 87±16 55±3 95±12 56±3 44±4 60±3 27±3" 59±3 48±3 65±4 NO3N(µgL 1) 17±3 19±1 19±1 16±3 19±2 18±1 16±3 19±1 17±1 20±1 NH4 N (µg L-1) 15±3 10±0.4 10±0.4 13±2 9±1 11±0.5 7±0.7" 11±0.4 10±0.6 11±0.5 Total P (µg L-1) 30±5 20±3 107±37- 16±2 20±3 21±3 10±2 21±3 27±6; 15±1 PO4 -P (µg L-1) 13±2" 7±0.2 1112 7±0.2 10±1' 6±0.2 6±0.5" 7±0.3 7±0.5 5±0.3 Results are reported by category of field observation of resource use activities and environmental conditions observed at the time of sample collection. The '-±' indicates 1 standard error of the mean, * indicates different at P<0.05 (Bonferroni-adjusted), and ** indicates different at P<0.01 (Bonferroni-adjusted). 'Stagnant or low stream flow (<2 liters per second). b5tream water turbid. `Cattle observed. dRecreational activities only (i.e., no cattle present) observed. 'Any activities (low stream flow, turbid water, precipitation, cattle, or recreation) observed that potentially impact water quality. doi:10.1371 /journal.pone.0068127.t005 differences between 1) key grazing areas, recreation areas, and sample sites with no concentrated resource use; and 2) occurrence of stagnant -low stream flow, turbid stream water, cattle, and recreation at the time of sample collection. We used GLMMs to analyze dependent variables with overdisperison (i.e., greater variance than expected) (fecal coliform, E. coli, TN) using the Poisson probability distribution function with robust standard errors [44]. For the GLMMs, we specified allotment identity and sample site identity as sequential random effects to account for hierarchical nesting and repeated measures [44,45]. Data with evidence of both overdispersion and zero -inflation can be produced by either unobserved heterogeneity or by processes that involve different mechanisms generating zero and nonzero counts [46-48]. For dependent variables with apparent overdispersion and zero -inflation (>25% zeros; NO3-N, NH4-N, TP, and PO4 - P), we used likelihood ratio tests to evaluate relative fits of zero - inflated negative binomial versus zero -inflated Poisson models [46-48]; we used simple Vuong tests [49] to evaluate relative fits of zero -inflated versus standard count models; and we used either likelihood ratio tests or Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), as appropriate, to compare relative fits between negative binomial and Poisson models. To account for the within -cluster correlation due to repeated measures, we specified sample site identity as a clustering variable in the final models to obtain robust variance estimates [50]. We also examined allotment -scale relationships of FIB and nutrient concentrations with environmental conditions and grazing management. We used bivariate zero -truncated count models to test associations between mean allotment values of response variables (fecal coliform, E. coli, TN, NO3 -N, NH4-N, TP, and PO4 -P; mean of all samples collected for each allotment) and cattle grazing duration, animal unit months (AUM) of grazing, cattle density as cow -calf pairs 100 ha -1, mean allotment elevation, and 2011-2012 water year precipitation [42] (indepen- dent variables). We used likelihood ratio tests to compare Poisson and negative binomial models [48]. For all analyses, when multiple response variables were predicted with the same independent variables, we interpreted significance levels using Bonferroni corrections to safeguard against Type I errors. Bonferroni adjusted p -values were considered significant at 0.0071 (dividing P=0.05 by the 7 water quality indicators tested) and 0.0014 (dividing P=0.01 by the 7 water quality indicators tested). All statistical analyses were conducted in Stata/SE 11.1 [48]. Results Surface Water Quality and Weather Conditions Observed during Study Precipitation during the 2010-11 water year ranged from 88 to 173% of the 30 -year mean annual precipitation for each allotment, with 11 of 12 allotments receiving over 100% of mean annual precipitation (Table S1). Overall, nutrient concentrations were low across the study area (Table 1). With the exception of TN, over 32% of samples were below minimum detection limits for all nutrients (<10 µg N L-1 and <5 µg P L-1). Nitrogen concentrations increased in October and November with the onset of fall rains (Fig. 2), and phosphorus concentrations showed no seasonal patterns (data not shown). The sum of NO3-N and NI -14- N concentrations was lower than organic N (TN- [NO3-N+NH4- N]) concentrations throughout the sampling season (Fig. 2), suggesting that the majority of nitrogen was in organic forms. Additionally, PO4 -P concentrations were much lower than TP (Table 1; Fig. 3), suggesting that the majority of phosphorus was either organic or inorganic P adsorbed to suspended sediments. Mean and maximum FC and E. coli concentrations per allotment ranged from 30 to 255 and 17 to 151 CFU 100 m1-1, and from 248 to 3,460 and 74 to 1,920, respectively (Table S2). FIB concentrations were highest from August through October (Fig. 4). Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relative to Water Quality Benchmarks Mean and median NO3-N, TP, and PO4 -P concentrations were at least one order of magnitude below nutrient concentrations recommended to avoid eutrophication (Table 1). No samples exceeded the NO3-N maximum recommendation (Table 1). Overall, less than 2% of samples exceeded eutrophication PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 9 June 2013 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 6 1 e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands 300 250 - 200- 0 150 - 0 100 - 50 - A • • • e• w • • • • • 0 300 0 2 4 6 Cattle Stocking Density (cow -calf pair 100 ha 1) 250 - 200 - o 0 150 - 100 - u.i 50 - 0 C • • • • • • • • • • • 100 120 140 160 180 Precipitation (cm) 300 — 250 E c,© 200 `—' - 150 - E O 0 100 U R LL 50 E 0 0 ▪ 200 - 0 0 B • • •• • • • • • • • • 300 250 2 4 Cattle Stocking Density (cow -calf pair 100 ha 1) 6 U E 150 o • 100 R U u- 50 0 D • • • • • • • • • • r 1 i 200 220 100 120 140 160 180 Precipitation (cm) 200 220 Figure 5. Trends in overall mean fecal indicator bacteria concentrations across sample sites during the June through November 2011sample period on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study. There were no significant relationships between allotment cattle stocking density and mean allotment concentrations of (A) E. coli (P>0.9) and (B) fecal coliform (P>0.3). During the study period, there were also no significant relationships between 2010-2011 water year precipitation and mean allotment concentrations of (C) E. coli (P>0.6) and (D) fecal coliform (P>0.5). doi:10.1371 /journal.pone.0068127.g005 benchmarks (Table 2), and less than 8% of sites exceeded these benchmarks at least once (Table 3). Mean and median TN, NO3 - N, and TP concentrations were at or below estimated background concentrations for the study area (Table 1). The percentage of all samples (Table 2) exceeding FIB benchmarks ranged from 50% (benchmark FC = 20 cfu 100 ml -1) to 1% (benchmark E. coli = 410 cfu 100 ml -1), while the percentage of sites (Table 3) that exceeded a FIB benchmark at least once ranged from 83% (benchmark FC = 20 cfu 100 ml -1) to 6% (benchmark E. coli = 410 cfu 100 ml -1). Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relative to Grazing, Recreation, and Field Observations Nutrient concentrations were at or below background levels, and only 0-10% of sites within each resource use activity category (i.e., key grazing areas, recreation areas, and non -concentrated use activities) had at least one nutrient benchmark exceedance (Table 3). The relative percentage of samples and sites exceeding FIB benchmarks for key grazing areas, recreation areas, and non - concentrated use areas varied by the individual benchmarks (Tables 2 and 3). We found significantly (P<0.002) lower FC, E. coli, TN and PO4 -P concentrations at recreation areas than at key grazing areas and areas with no concentrated use activities (Table 4). Mean NO3 -N concentrations were also significantly lower (P<0.001) at recreation sites than at areas with no concentrated use activity; however, it is important to note that all nutrient concentrations were at or below background levels (Table 1), and none of the sites sampled ever exceeded the maximum recommended NO3 -N concentrations during the study (Tables 3). Relative to conditions at time of sample collection, FC, E. coli, and PO4 -P concentrations were significantly (P<0.0071) higher when stream flow was low or stagnant, stream water was turbid, and when cattle were actively observed (Table 5). TP concentra- tions were also significantly higher (P<0.001) under turbid water PLOS ONE www.plosone.org 10 June 2013 I Volume 8 1 Issue 6 1 e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands conditions. E. coli, TN, NH4-N, and PO4 -P concentrations were significantly lower (P<0.006) when recreation activities were observed at time of sampling, compared to sample events when recreation was not occurring (Table 5). Occurrence of high to moderate cover (>20% of substrate cover) of algae, periphyton, and other aquatic organisms at time of sampling was low (<2% of samples). Allotment -scale Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relative to Grazing Management and Environmental Conditions Mean allotment -scale nutrient concentrations were not signif- icantly related (at Bonferroni adjusted P<0.0071) to cattle density (TN: P= 0.3; NO3-N: P= 0.2; NH4-N: P= 0.2; TP: P= 0.3; PO4 - P: P= 0.1), precipitation (TN: P= 0.09; NO3 -N: P= 0.07; NH4-N: P= 0.73; TP: P= 0.3; PO4 -P: P= 0.04), mean allotment elevation (TN: P= 0.02; NO3-N: P=0.4; NH4-N: P=0.07; TP: P=0.5; PO4 -P: P=0.2), AUM (TN: P=0.6; NO3 -N: P=0.5; NH4-N: P=0.9; TP: P= 0.1; PO4 -P: P= 0.6), or grazing duration (TN: P=0.02; NO3-N: P=0.5; NH4-N: P=0.03; TP: P=0.6; PO4 -P: P= 0.6). Mean allotment E. coli and FC concentrations showed increasing trends with increasing cattle densities and AUMs, and decreasing trends with increasing precipitation; however, these relationships were not statistically significant (P>0.2; Fig. 5). Mean allotment elevation (P>0.8), and cattle grazing duration (P>0.7) were also not correlated to mean allotment FIB concentrations (data not shown). Discussion Nutrient Conditions Relative to Water Quality Benchmarks Mean and median nutrient concentrations observed across this grazed landscape were well below eutrophication benchmarks and background estimates (Table 1) [38-43]. Observed peak values in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were largely organic (or inorganic P adsorbed to suspended sediments) (Figs. 2 and 3), which are not considered readily available to stimulate primary production and eutrophication [39,51]. These results do not support concerns that excessive nutrient pollution is degrading surface waters on these USFS grazing allotments [4,12]. Our nutrient results are consistent with other examinations of surface water quality in similarly grazed landscapes. In the Sierra Nevada, Roche et al. [14] found nutrient concentrations of surface waters within key cattle grazing areas (mountain meadows) to be at least an order of magnitude below levels of ecological or biological concern for sensitive amphibians. On the Wallowa -Whitman National Forest in northeastern Oregon, Adams et al. [52] also reported nutrient levels to be at or below minimum detection levels in surface waters at key grazing areas. Our results also agree with other studies of nutrient dynamics in the study area [53,54]. Headwater streams, such as those draining the study allotments, typically make up 85% of total basin scale drainage network length, have high morphological complexity, and high surface to volume ratios -which make them particularly effective at nutrient processing and retention [55]. Leonard et al [54] found that drainages in the western Tahoe Basin recovering from past disturbances and undergoing secondary succession tend to act as sinks for nutrients. Several studies have reported nutrient limitations across montane and subalpine systems resulting in low riverine nutrient export [56]. FIB Concentrations Relative to Water Quality Benchmarks Overall mean and median E. coli were 40 and 8 cfu 100 ml -1, and mean and median FC were 82 and 21 cfu 100 ml -1 (Table S2)- indicating that the nationally recommended E. coli FIB -based benchmarks would be broadly met, and that the more restrictive, FC FIB -based regional water quality benchmarks would be commonly exceeded across the study region. Clearly, assessments of microbial water quality and human health risks are dependent upon which FIB benchmarks are used for evaluation (Tables 2 and 3). The scientific and policy communities are currently evaluating the utility of, and guidance for, FIB -based water quality objective effectiveness for safe -guarding recreational waters. As reviewed in Field and Samadpour [8], E. coli and FC are not always ideal indicators of fecal contamination and risk to human health from microbial pathogens. Poor correlations between bacterial indica- tors and pathogens such as Salmonella spp., Giardia spp., Cryptospo- ridium spp., and human viruses undermine the utility of these bacteria as indicators of pathogen occurrence and human health risk [8]. The ability of FIB to establish extra -intestinal, non -animal, non -human associated environmental strains and to grow and reproduce in water, soil sediments, algal wrack, and plant cavities also erodes their utility as indicators of animal or human fecal contamination [8]. Citing scientific advancements in the past two decades, the USEPA now recommends adoption of an indicator E. coli water quality objective as an improvement over previously used general indicators, including FC [34]. This guidance is based, in part, on E. coli exhibiting relatively fewer of the fecal indicator bacteria utility issues listed above, and on evidence that E. coli is a better predictor of gastro-intestinal illness than FC. Therefore, comparing our results to the most relevant and scientifically defensible E. coli 1,1B -based recommendations, 17%0 of all sites exceeded the 190 cfu 100 m1-1 benchmark, and 14% of all sites exceeded the 235 cfu 100 ml -1 benchmark [34]. This analysis, based on the best available science and USEPA guidance, clearly contrasts with the FC FIB -based interpretations currently in use by several regional regulatory programs, which suggest that as many as 83% of all sites in our study present potential human health risks. Temporal Patterns in Water Quality We observed a marked increase in total nitrogen concentrations in October and November, driven primarily by increased organic nitrogen, and to a lesser extent NO3-N (Fig. 2). This coincided with the first rainfall -runoff events of fall that initiated flushing of solutes and particulates. The annual fall flush occurs subsequent to the summer drought and base flow period during which organic and inorganic nutrient compounds accumulate in soil and forest litter [54,57-60]. The disparity between TN and inorganic nitrogen (NO3-N+NH4-N) indicates the majority of flushed nitrogen was either particulate or dissolved organic nitrogen (Fig. 2). Consequently, most of the nitrogen flushed was likely in a relatively biologically unavailable form [51], with limited risk (relative to inorganic forms) of stimulating primary production and eutrophication. However, in nitrogen limited systems, increased biological utilization of organic nitrogen can occur [61]. FIB concentrations were highest from August through October (Fig. 4), which coincides with the period of maximum number of cattle turned out (Table S1). There is clear evidence that FIB concentrations increase with the introduction of cattle into a landscape, and increase with increasing cattle numbers [62-65]. The observed seasonal pattern of peak FIB concentrations also tracks the progression of stream flow from high, cold spring snowmelt to low, warm late -summer base flow conditions. Warm, PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 11 June 2013 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 6 1 e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands low -flow conditions have been associated with elevated FIB [66- 68]. Across this region, stream water temperatures are at their annual maximum in August and stream flows are at their annual minimum in September [69,70]. We observed stagnant -low flow conditions to be significantly associated with increased FIB concentrations (Table 5). It is likely that the seasonal peak of FIB concentrations is driven by timing of maximum annual cattle numbers, as well as optimal environmental conditions for growth and in -stream retention of both animal -derived and environmental bacteria (e.g., wildlife sources) [71-73]. Similar temporal trends in FIB concentrations have been observed in surface waters of Oregon, Wyoming, and Alaska [65,74,75]. Water Quality, Grazing, Recreation, and Environmental Conditions Mean FIB concentrations at key grazing and non -concentrated use areas were higher than recreation sites, but did not exceed USEPA E. coli FIB -based benchmarks (Table 4). Mean FIB concentrations for all resource use activity categories exceeded the most restrictive regional FC F1B-based benchmarks of 20 and 50 cfu 100 ml -1. E. coli FIB -based benchmark comparisons were generally comparable across sites, with recreation sites exhibiting overall lower numbers of exceedances; however, the different FC FIB -based benchmark comparisons indicated inconsistent results for water quality conditions across sites (Table 3). Similar to other surveys in the region [6,12,13], FIB concentrations were significantly greater when cattle were present at time of sample collection (Table 5). Tiedemann et al. [65] observed the same trend, with higher stream water FC concentrations on forested watersheds experiencing relatively intensive cattle grazing com- pared to ungrazed watersheds. Gary et al. [63] found grazing to have relatively minor impacts on water quality, though a statistically significant increase in stream water FC concentrations was induced at a relatively high stocking rate. Mean allotment FIB concentrations showed apparent increasing trends with greater cattle densities (Fig. 5A and 5B); however, these allotment -level relationships were not statistically significant. Decreasing cattle density lowers fecal -microbial pollutant loading [76], which has been shown to reduce FIB concentrations in runoff from grazed landscapes [77]. Decreasing cattle density may also reduce stream bed disturbance and re -suspension of FIB -sediment associations by cattle [78-82]. Attracted to streams for shade, water, and riparian forage, cattle have been shown to spend approximately 5% of their day within or adjacent to a stream [63], depositing about 1.5% of their total fecal matter within one meter of a stream [83]. In a comprehensive review, George et al. [19] found that management practices that reduce livestock densities, residence time, and fecal and urine deposition in streams and riparian areas can reduce nutrient and microbial pollutant loading of surface water. Samples associated with turbid stream water at the time of sample collection had significantly higher mean FIB concentra- tions than samples associated with non -turbid conditions (Table 5). It has been well documented that stream sediments contain higher concentrations of FIB than overlying waters [78-80,82], and that re -suspension of sediments in the water column by factors such as cattle disturbance or elevated stream flow is associated with elevated water column FIB concentrations [81]. FIB concentra- tions were also significantly higher under stagnant -low flow conditions (Table 5). Schnabel et al. [75] found a negative correlation between stream discharge and FIB concentrations at some sites, possibly due to the absence of a dilution effect under low flow conditions. Although not statistically significant, we observed decreasing mean allotment FIB concentrations with greater precipitation during the 2010-2011 water -year (October 1 to September 30) (Fig. 5C and 5D). It is likely that precipitation during the 2010- 2011 water -year is primarily reflecting snowpack, which supported higher than historical stream flow volumes during the study period. This potential relationship possibly reflects capacity of higher base flow volumes to dilute FIB concentrations. Lewis et al. [84] observed a similar negative correlation between surface runoff FC concentrations and annual cumulative precipitation on California coastal dairy pastures. Our observation that maximum 11B concentrations occurred under stagnant -low flow conditions (Table 5) also supports the potential for a negative relationship between FIB concentrations and annual precipitation. Our results do not support previous concerns of widespread microbial water quality pollution across these grazed landscapes, as concluded in other surveys [6,12,13] . Although we did fmd apparent trends between cattle density and FIB concentrations (Figs. 5A and 5B) and significantly greater FIB concentrations when cattle were actively present, only 16% and 13% (Table 3) of key grazing areas (n= 97) exceeded the E. coli FIB -based benchmarks of 190 cfu 100 m-1 and 235 cfu 100 m-1, respec- tively. Only 5 and 3% of total samples collected exceeded the E. coli FIB -based benchmarks of 190 cfu 100 m-1 and 235 cfu 100 m-1, respectively (Table 2). In contrast, Derlet et al. [6] reported 60% and 53% of cattle grazing sites (n = 15) exceeded the 190 cfu 100 m-1 and 235 cfu 100 m-1 benchmarks, respectively. We also found no significant differences in FIB concentrations among key grazing areas and areas of no concentrated use activities (Table 4), which contrasts with previous work in the Sierra Nevada [6,12]. Finally, in this landscape of mixed livestock grazing and recreational uses, we found FIB concentrations to be lowest at recreation sites, indicating that water recreation objectives can be broadly attained within these grazing allotments. There are three important distinctions that separate our study from previous work: 1) in reaching our conclusions, we compared our study results to regulatory and background water quality benchmarks, which are based on current and best available science and policy; 2) these co-occurring land -use activities were directly compared on the same land units managed by a single agency (USFS), as opposed to previous comparisons between these land - uses occurring on different management units administered by different agencies with very different land -use histories and policies (e.g., USFS and U.S. National Park Service); and 3) to date, this study is the most comprehensive water quality survey in existence for National Forest public grazing lands, including an assessment of seven water quality indicators at 155 sites across five National Forests. Conclusions Nutrient concentrations observed across this extensively grazed landscape were at least one order of magnitude below levels of ecological concern, and were similar to USEPA estimates for background conditions in the region. Late season total nitrogen concentrations increased across all study allotments due to a first flush of organic nitrogen associated with onset of fall rainfall -runoff events, as is commonly observed in California's Mediterranean climate. Similar to previous work, we found greater FIB concentrations when cattle were present; however, we did not find overall significant differences in FIB concentrations between key grazing areas and non -concentrated use areas, and all but the most restrictive, FC FIB -based regional water quality benchmarks were broadly met across the study region. Although many regional regulatory programs utilize the FC FIB -based standards, the PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 12 June 2013 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 6 1 e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands USEPA clearly states -citing the best available science -E. coli are better indicators of fecal contamination and therefore provide a more accurate assessment of water quality conditions and human health risks. Throughout the study period, the USEPA recom- mended E. coli benchmarks of 190 and 235 cfu 100 ml- I were met at over 83% of sites. These results suggest cattle grazing, recreation, and clean water can be compatible goals across these national forest lands. Supporting Information Table S1 Geographic characteristics, study year pre- cipitation, cattle grazing management, and water qual- ity sample collection sites and sample numbers for 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study of stream water quality between June and November 2011. (DOCX) Table S2 Mean, median, and maximum fecal coliform (FC) and E. coli concentrations for 743 stream water References samples collected across 155 sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern Califor- nia. All concentrations are reported as colony forming units per 100 ml of sample water (cfu 100 ml -1). (DOCX) Acknowledgments We thank Anne Yost, Barry Hill, and staff from the Klamath, Shasta - Trinity, Plumas, Tahoe, and Stanislaus National Forests for their assistance with study plan development and field data collection; Tom Lushinsky, DJ. Eastburn, Natalie Wegner, Donna Dutra, Mark Noyes, and Xien Wang for lab sample processing; University of California Cooperative Extension and USFS District Rangers and Forest Supervisors who provided lab space; and Anne Yost, Barry Hill, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments on this manuscript. Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: KWT ERA RAD. Performed the experiments: KWT. Analyzed the data: LMR KWT. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: KWT RAD. Wrote the paper: LMR LK ERA RAD KWT. 1. Gentner BJ, Tanaka JA (2002) Classifying federal public land grazing permittees. 20. J Range Manage 55: 2-11. 2. Huntsinger L, Forero LC, Sulak A (2010) Transhumance and pastoralist resilience in the Western United States. Pastoralism I: 9-36. 3. Sulak A, Huntsinger L (2002) The importance of federal grazing allotments to central Sierran oak woodland permittces: A first approximation. In: Standiford RB, editor. Fifth symposium on oak woodlands: Oaks in California's changing landscape, PSW-GTR-184. Albany, California: USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. 43-51. 4. Belsky AJ, Matzke A, Uselman S (1999) Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J Soil Water Consery 54: 419-431. 5. Brunson MW, Steel BS (1996) Sources of variation in attitudes and beliefs about federal rangeland management. J Range Manage 49: 69-75. 6. Derlet RW, Carlson JR (2006) Coliform bacteria in Sierra Nevada wilderness lakes and streams: What is the impact of backpackers, pack animals, and cattle? J Wilderness Med 17: 15-20. 7. Taylor FR, Gillman LA, Pedretti JAY (1989) Impact of cattle on 2 isolated fish populations in Pahranagat Valley, Nevada. Great Basin Nat 49: 491-495. 8. Field KG, Samadpour M (2007) Fecal source tracking, the indicator paradigm, and managing water quality. Water Res 41: 3517-3538. 9. Conley DJ, Paerl HW, Howarth RW, Boesch DF, Seitzinger SP, et al. (2009) Controlling eutrophication: Nitrogen and phosphorus. Science 323: 1014-1015. 10. USFS (2011) Grazing statistical summary fiscal year 2009. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. 108 p. 11. USFS (2012) National visitor use monitoring results - USDA Forest Service national summary report. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. 31 p. 12. Derlet RW, Richards JR, Tanaka LL, Hayden C, Ger KA, et al. (2012) Impact of summer cattle grazing on the Sierra Nevada watershed: Aquatic algae and bacteria. J Env Pub Health 2012: 1-7. 13. Myers L, Whited B (2012) The impact of cattle grazing in high elevation Sierra Nevada mountain meadows over widely variable annual climatic conditions. J Env Protection 3: 823-837. 14. Roche LM, Allen -Diaz B, Eastburn DJ, Tate KW (2012) Cattle grazing and Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus Camp) breeding habitat in Sierra Nevada meadows. Rangeland Ecol Manag 65: 56-65. 15. Ahearn DS, Sheibley RW, Dahlgren RA, Anderson M, Johnson J, et al. (2005) Land use and land cover influence on water quality in the last free -flowing river draining the western Sierra Nevada, California. J Hydrol 313: 234-247. 16. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Staff (2008) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). Available: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/ geography/ssurgo/. Accessed 2013 May 31. 17. USFS (2009) CALVEG 2000, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Remote Sensing Lab website. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/ gis/data/vegcovs/cvalley/EvegTile33A_00_07_100k_v2.html. Accessed 2013 May 31. 18. Delcurto T, Porath M, Parsons CT, Morrison JA (2005) Management strategies for sustainable beef cattle grazing on forested rangelands in the Pacific Northwest. Rangeland Ecol Manag 58: 119-127. 37. 19. George MR, Jackson RD, Boyd CS, Tate KW (2011) A scientific assessment of the effectiveness of riparian management practices. In: Bridke DD, editor. 38. Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: Assessment, recommendations, and knowledge gaps. Lawrence: Allen Press. 213-252. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Clary WP, Leininger WC (2000) Stubble height as a tool for management of riparian areas. J Range Manage 53: 562-573. BLM (1999) Utilization studies and residual measurements. Denver: USDI Bureau of Land Management. 174 p. USFS (1988) Plumas National Forest land and resource management plan website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/plumas/landmanagement. Accessed 2013 May 23. USFS (1990) Tahoe National Forest land and resource management plan website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tahoe/landmanagement. Ac- cessed 2013 May 23. USFS (1995) Shasta -Trinity National Forest land and resource management plan website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/surf/landmanagement/ planning. Accessed 2013 May 23. USFS (2004) 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest plan amendment record of decision. Vallejo, California: USDA Forest Service. 72 p. USFS (2010) Klamath National Forest land and resource management plan website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/klamath/landrnanagement/ planning. Accessed 2013 May 23. USFS (2010) Stanislaus National Forest land and resource management plan website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stanislaus/landmanagement/ planning. Accessed 2013 May 23. Dahlgren RA, Tate KW, Ahearn DS (2004) Watershed scale, water quality monitoring - water sample collection. In: Down RD, Lehr JH, editors. Environmental instrumentation and analysis handbook. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 547-564. Eaton AD, Clesceri LS, Rice EW, Greenberg AE, Franson MAH (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater: Centennial edition. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association. 1368 p. Yu ZS, Northup RR, Dahlgren RA (1994) Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate - nitrogen. Commun Soil Sci Plan 25: 3161-3169. Doane TA, Horwath WR (2003) Spectrophotometric determination of nitrate with a single reagent. Anal Lett 36: 2713-2722. Verdouw H, Vanechteld CJA, Dekkers EMJ (1978) Ammonia determination based on indophenol formation with sodium salicylate. Water Res 12: 399-402. Puckett M (2002) Quality assurance management plan for the state of California's surface water ambient monitoring program. Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program website. Available: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_ issues/programs/swamp/tools.shtml. Accessed 2013 May 23. USEPA (2012) Recreational water quality criteria. Washington D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 73 CVRWQCB (2011) The water quality control plan (basin plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley region. Sacramento: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 148 p. LRWQCB (2005) Water quality control plan for the Lahontan region. South Lake Tahoe: Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. 55 p. NCRWQCB (2011) Water quality control plan for the North Coast region. Santa Rosa: North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 13 p. Cline C (1973) The effects of forest fertilization on the Tahuya River, Kitsap Peninsula, Washington. Olympia: Washington State Department of Ecology. 55 p. p. PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 13 June 2013 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 6 e68127 ATTACHMENT 4 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands 39. MacDonald LH, Smart AW, Wissmar RC (1991) Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, EPA 910/9 91-001. Seattle: US Environmental Protection Agency. 180 p. 40. Mackenthun KM (1973) Toward a cleaner aquatic environment. Washington, D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency. 289 p. 41. USEPA (1986) Quality criteria for water: 1986. Washington, D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 477 p. 42. USEPA (1987) Surface water monitoring: A framework for change. Washington, D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 41 p. 43. USEPA (2000) Ambient water quality criteria recommendations: Rivers and streams in Ecoregion II. Washington, D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 120 p. 44. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. College Station: Stata Press. 562 p. 45. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed -effects models in S and S -PLUS. New York: Springer-Verlag. 528 p. 46. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (1998) Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 47. Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 48. StataCorp (2009) Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station: StataCorp LP. 49. Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non -nested hypotheses. Econometrica 57: 307-333. 50. Williams RL (2000) A note on robust variance estimation for cluster -correlated data. Biometrics 56: 645-646. 51. Campbell JL, Hornbeck JW, McDowell WH, Buso DC, ShanleyJB, et al. (2000) Dissolved organic nitrogen budgets for upland, forested ecosystems in New England. Biogeochemistry 49: 123-142. 52. Adams MJ, Pearl CA, McCreary B, Galvan SK, Wessell SJ, et al. (2009) Short- term effect of cattle exclosures on Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiaentris) populations and habitat in northeastern Oregon. J Herpetol 43: 132-138. 53. Green MB, Fritsen CH (2006) Spatial variation of nutrient balance in the Truckee River, California -Nevada. J Am Water Resour As 42: 659-674. 54. Leonard RL, Kaplan LA, Elder JF, Coats RN, Goldman CR (1979) Nutrient transport in surface runoff from a subalpine watershed, Lake Tahoe Basin, California. Ecol Monogr 49: 281-310. 55. Peterson BJ, Wollheim WM, Mulholland PJ, Webster JR, MeyerJL, et al. (2001) Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292: 86-90, 56. Hill BH, McCormick FH, Harvey BC, Johnson SL, Warren ML, et al. (2010) Microbial enzyme activity, nutrient uptake and nutrient limitation in forested streams. Freshwater Biol 55: 1005 -1019. 57. Ahearn DS, Sheibley RW, Dahlgren RA, Keller KE (2004) Temporal dynamics of stream water chemistry in the last free -flowing river draining the western Sierra Nevada, California. J Hydrol 295: 47-63. 58. Bernal S, Butturini A, Sabater F (2005) Seasonal variations of dissolved nitrogen and DOC : DON ratios in an intermittent Mediterranean stream. Biogeochem- istry 75: 351-372. 59. Miller WW, Johnson DW, Denton C, Verburg PSJ, Dana GL, et al. (2005) Inconspicuous nutrient laden surface runoff from mature forest Sierran watersheds. Water Air Soil Poll 163: 3-17. 60. van Verseveld WJ, McDonnell JJ, Lajtha K (2008) A mechanistic assessment of nutrient flushing at the catchment scale. J Hydrol 358: 268-287. 61. Kaushal SS, Lewis WM (2005) Fate and transport of organic nitrogen in minimally disturbed montane streams of Colorado, USA. Biogeochemistry 74: 303-321. 62. Doran JW, Schepers JS, Swanson NP (1981) Chemical and bacteriological quality of pasture runoff. J Soil Water Consery 36: 166-171. 63. Gary HL, Johnson SR, Ponce SL (1983) Cattle grazing impact on surface -water quality in a Colorado Front Range stream. J Soil Water Consery 38: 124 128. 64. Schepers JS, Francis DD (1982) Chemical water -quality of runoff from grazing land in Nebraska. 1. Influence of grazing livestock. J Environ Qual 11: 351-354. 65. Tiedemann AR, Higgins DA, Quigley TM, Sanderson HR, Marx DB (1987) Responses of fecal-coliformin streamwater to 4 grazing strategies. J Range Manage 40: 322-329. 66. Allan JD (1995) Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters. London: Chapman & Hall. 388 p. 67. Edwards DR, Coyne MS, Daniel TC, Vendrell PF, Murdoch JF, et al. (1997) Indicator bacteria concentrations of two northwest Arkansas streams in relation to flow and season. T ASAE 40: 103-109. 68. Lau YL, Liu D (1993) Effect of flow -rate on biofilm accumulation in open channels. Water Res 27: 355-360. 69. Krupa M, Tate KW, Van Kessel C, Sarwar N, Linguist B (2011) Water quality in rice -growing watersheds in a Mediterranean climate. Agr Ecosyst Environ 144: 290-301. 70. Tate KW, Lancaster DL, Lfle DF (2007) Assessment of thermal stratification within stream pools as a mechanism to provide refitgia for native trout in hot, arid rangelands. Environ Monit Assess 124: 289-300. 71. Alm EW, Burke J, Hagan E (2006) Persistence and potential growth of the fecal indicator bacteria, Escherichia coli, in shoreline sand at Lake Huron. J Great Lakes Res 32: 401-405. 72. Byappanahalli MN, Whitman RL, Shively DA, Ting WTE, Tseng CC, et al. (2006) Seasonal persistence and population characteristics of Escheridaia coli and. enterococci in deep backshore sand of two freshwater beaches. J Water Health 4: 313-320. 73. Roszak DB, Colwell RR (1987) Survival strategies of bacteria in the natural - environment. Microbiol Rev 51: 365-379. 74. Clark ML, Norris JR (2000) Occurrence of fecal coliform bacteria in selected streams in Wyoming,1990-99: Water resources investigations report 00-4198. Cheyenne: US Geological Survey. 8 p. 75. Schnabel WE, Wilson T, Edwards R, Stahnke G, Maselko M, et al. (2010) Variability, seasonality, and persistence of fecal coliform bacteria in a cold - region, urban stream. J Cold Reg Eng 24: 54-75. 76. Roche LM, Latimer AM, Eastburn DJ, Tate KW (2012) Cattle grazing and conservation of a meadow -dependent amphibian species in the Sierra Nevada. PIoS One 7: 1-11. 77. Knox AK, Tate KW, Dahgren RA, Atwill ER (2007) Management reduces E. coli in irrigated pasture runoff. Calif Agr 61: 159-165. 78. Jamieson R, Joy DM, Lee H, Kostaschuk R, Gordon R (2005) Transport and deposition of sediment -associated Escherichia coli in natural streams. Water Res 39: 2665-2675. 79. Jamieson RC, Gordon RJ, Tattrie SC, Stratton GW (2003) Sources and persistence of fecal coliform bacteria in a rural watershed. Water Qual Res J Can 38: 33-47. 80. Sherer BM, Miner JR, Moore JA, Buckhouse JC (1992) Indicator bacterial survival in stream sediments. J Environ Qual 21: 591-595. 81. Stephenson GR, Rychert RC (1982) Bottom sediment - a reservoir ofEscheriehia- coli in rangeland streams. J Range Manage 35: 119-123. 82. Van Donsel DJ, Geldreich EE (1971) Relationships of Salmonellae to fecal coliforms in bottom sediments. Water Res 5: 1079-1087. 83. Porath ML, Momont PA, DelCurto T, Rimbey NR, Tanaka JA, et al. (2002) Offstream water and trace mineral salt as management strategies for improved cattle distribution. J Anim Sci 80: 346-356. 84. Lewis DJ, Atwill ER, Lennox MS, Pereira MDG, Miller WA, et al. (2009) Reducing microbial contamination in storm runoff from high use areas on California coastal dairies. Water Sci Technol 60: 1731-1743. PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 14 June 2013 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 6 1 e68127 Subject: FW: All Board Members - Board Contact Form From: Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 4:56 PM To: Clerk <clerk@openspace.org>; General Information <info@openspace.org> Subject: All Board Members - Board Contact Form EXTERNAL Name * Erin Tormey Select a All Board Members Choice * Email * Location: San Mateo County (i.e. City, Address or District Ward) Comments: * February 25, 2020 Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Dear MROSD, The San Mateo Food System Alliance (SMFSA) would like to express its support for the Grazing Management Policy Amendment, incorporating conservation grazing to help maintain and restore native grasslands, biodiversity, manage vegetation to reduce wildfire risk, and support agriculture in San Mateo County. As part of conservation grazing, SMFSA 1 supports grazers like Erik and Doniga Markegard who utilize holistic management and regenerative grazing practices to improve soil health, climate stability, conserve water, support wildlife, animal welfare, economic prosperity, and biodiversity. Formed in 2006, the SMFSA is a community -based collaborative of farmers, ranchers, fishermen, farmers' market managers, public health and environmental professionals, garden -based educators, distributors, and residents seeking to promote, enhance and support an enduring and interdependent food system that is economically viable, environmentally sound, and socially equitable. The Food System Alliance seeks to increase access to healthy, local food for all residents, support rural economies, and ensure that land and waterways are not just maintained, but are preserved for future generations. Ranchers that graze their cattle in a way that mimics nature and supports a natural environment --one that includes both grazers and predators. This holistic method of grazing provides ecosystem services with multiple stewardship benefits and is a cost-effective method for maintaining healthy grasslands on the San Mateo County coast. Additional benefits of holistic, regenerative grazing include: Soil Health --Improve soil health and fertility and reduce topsoil loss. Planned adaptive grazing can help slow or reverse topsoil loss by building organic matter and reducing compaction. (Byrnes, et al, 2018; Conant, et al, 201 7; Pilan, et al, 2017; Teague, et al, 201 1) Biodiversity--Steward ecosystems to be productive and diverse. Regenerative ranching can support native plants, songbirds, and listed vertebrates and control invasive plants. (Gennet, et al, 201 7; Marty, 2005; Henneman, et al, 2014; Stahlheber and D'Antonio, 201 3; D'Tomasco, et al, 2007) Food Security --Increase net productivity and resilience of our working lands. Meat provides 1 8% of the calories and 25% of the protein in global diets. 85% of livestock feed uses crop residues and byproducts unsuitable for humans. (Mottet, et al, 201 7) In summary, SMFSA fully supports the Grazing Management Policy Amendment, and more specifically the grazing lease for Toto Ranch operated by Markegard Family Grass Fed and the benefits of grazing on local, public grasslands. Sincerely, 2 Erin Tormey Proprietor, Farm Fatales on Irish Ridge Ranch 201 7 Farmer of the Year Founder, Coastside Farmers' Markets On behalf of the San Mateo Food System Alliance 3 green � foothills February 26, 2020 President Karen Holman and Board Members Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Re: Item #4 on the February 26, 2020 Agenda: Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan and Grazing Lease in Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve Dear President Holman and Board Members, On behalf of Green Foothills, I write in support of the staff recommendation to adopt the Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan and to enter into a new five-year lease at Toto Ranch with Erik and Donega Markegard. Green Foothills has worked since our founding in 1962 to protect open space, farmland, and natural resources in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties for the benefit of all. We have a long-standing and abiding interest in the rural San Mateo County coast, and have supported agricultural uses and practices that are consistent with our mission. Green Foothills was instrumental in the successful extension of the District boundaries to include the San Mateo County coast in 2004. As part of that effort, the District adopted a Coastside Mission Statement: "To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education." The Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan includes prescriptions to meet the District's conservation grazing goals that help maintain and enhance the biodiversity of native grasslands, manage vegetation to reduce wildfire risk, and that will also support local, viable agricultural uses. As part of conservation grazing, Green Foothills commends livestock grazers like the Markegards who use holistic management and regenerative grazing practices to improve soil health, conserve water, support diverse wildlife species, and help achieve climate stability. Their current lease should be extended, per the Staff Recommendation. Sincerely, LIL-"•-•-• .721 Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate, Green Foothills Local. Vocal. Effective. (65o) 968-7243 • info@greenfoothills.org • greenfoothills.org • 3921 E Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 From: Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 12:32 AM To: Clerk; General Information Subject: All Board Members - Board Contact Form EXTERNAL Name * Cynthia Fan Select a All Board Members Choice * Email * - Location: Los Gatos (i.e. City, Address or District Ward) Comments: * Re: agenda item 4 of the 2/26/20 Midpen board meeting, "Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan and Grazing Lease in Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve" To the MidPen Board: I am writing to express strong support for you to continue to utilize well -managed cattle grazing on MidPen's public lands. Specifically, I urge you to approve the renewal of Doniga and Erik Markegard's grazing lease for Toto Ranch. You are able to use data gathered from the land this family has leased to inform your decisions. The scale and practices of the Markegard's operation are not representative of those used in poorly -managed grazing operations. It is evident that the land leased to the Markegards does not suffer from the ecological and environmental damages that result from poorly -managed grazing operations. 1 The rangeland management plan being proposed formally addresses areas of concern to ensure continued conservation of our grasslands while minimizing negative impacts. Maintaining balance (in an ecosystem or in anything else), by definition, requires constant adjustments; MidPen's Grazing Plan allows for this. In the context of the big picture, the pros of well -managed cattle grazing on public lands outweigh the cons. Well - managed cattle grazing helps maintain the ecosystem needed to support the native plants and wildlife that MidPen is dedicated to preserving. Well -managed cattle grazing helps maintain critical biodiversity above and below the ground. Well -managed cattle grazing builds healthy soils, soils that can absorb water like a sponge to give our area climate resilience in the face of flooding and drought. In the big picture, all these environmental benefits make it worth the investment of addressing the inevitable yet manageable challenges that arise. And when it comes to food production, here is the big picture: Most of the beef and dairy products consumed in our country come from the industrial food system, a system that is highly extractive and destructive rather than regenerative. To address the climate crisis and support true environmental stewardship in a country not ready to wholly give up beef and dairy, we must urgently and drastically change the model of animal agriculture used in our country's food system. How do we do that? We support the viability of local operations like Erik and Doniga Markegard's, operations that represent the antithesis of the horribly broken industrial food system. The Markegards are well -recognized and highly -respected leaders in the movement away from the industrial food system. They demonstrate that ethical animal agriculture and environmental stewardship are practical and achievable. And they do so while offering full transparency. Because of these things, they are invaluable models for other producers and they are invaluable to conscious consumers like my family who want to ensure we are supporting good, clean, fair food. In a foodscape dominated by highly -profitable multinational corporations deceptively greenwashing consumers while externalizing the true costs to our soil, air, water, and biodiversity, it is more imperative than ever that we maintain the viability of ethical small- and mid -scale producers that are offering full transparency like the Markegards. Our food system and environment currently suffers greatly from the dearth of small- and mid -scale values -based producers. Because land scarcity, especially in California, is one of the greatest challenges to successfully reforming our food system, it is critical that our public lands continue to be shared with values -based agricultural producers like the Markegards. So thank you for collaborating with the Markegards, and other like-minded producers, on supporting the conservation of our grasslands while ALSO preserving responsible animal agricultural operations on Midpen-owned lands. This is the 2 clear path to upholding Midpen's mission. Thank you for being leaders in land management. -Cynthia Fan resident of Los Gatos and consumer advocating for the viability of good, clean, and fair agricultural production