HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200122 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 20-02
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM*
A G E N D A
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 December 9, 2019, December 11, 2019, December 18, 2019 and January 8, 2020
Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Appointment of Board of Directors Standing Committee Members and Representatives to
Various Bodies, Including the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Financing Authority, for Calendar Year 2020 (R-20-02)
Staff Contact: Karen Holman, Board President
Board President’s Recommendation: Approve the Board President’s appointments to the Board
Standing Committees and other bodies, including the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Financing Authority, and determine the compensable status for
attendance at these meetings.
Meeting 20-02
Rev. 1/3/20
4. Adopt an Addendum to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan as an
amendment to the Russian Ridge Use and Management Plan that adds the south pasture as
part of the conservation grazing area on the property, and approve an Addendum to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan (R-20-10)
Staff Contact: Lewis Reed, Rangeland Ecologist/Botanist
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Russian Ridge Use and Management Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, to add the south pasture as part of the conservation grazing area on the property.
2. Approve Addendum #1 to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Plan to guide management in the
south pasture expansion area.
3. Amend the Russian Ridge Use and Management Plan for the south pasture expansion to reflect
the approval of Addendum #1 to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Plan.
5. Annual Dedication Report of Certain Lands of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District (R-20-11)
Staff Contact: Michael Williams, Real Property Department Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation: Accept the annual report on the status of dedicated interests
in lands of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District held for public open space purposes.
6. Resolution to Accept Grant Funding from the State Coastal Conservancy for the Purisima-
to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility and Planning Project (R-20-12)
Staff Contact: Jordan McDaniel, Senior Grants & Procurement Technician
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to
execute a grant agreement with the State Coastal Conservancy to receive $301,000 for the
preparation of preliminary planning documents for a seven-mile extension of the proposed
Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and related parking area to be located on the San Mateo County coast.
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.
7. Proposed purchase of the Tabachnik Trust Property as an addition to Tunitas Creek Open
Space Preserve in unincorporated San Mateo County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 066-300-
010 (portion) and 066-300-020) (R-20-13)
Staff Contact: Allen Ishibashi, Sr. Real Property Agent
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the Tabachnik Trust Property and amending the
Fiscal Year 2019-20 budget accordingly.
3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, as set out in the staff report.
4. Withhold dedication of the property as public open space at this time.
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
Rev. 1/3/20
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
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 regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for
review on January 16, 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
December 9, 2019
Board Meeting 19-30
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Mountain View Community Center – Maple Room
201 S. Rengstorff Ave.
Mountain View, CA 94040
Monday, December 9, 2019
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
Vice-President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko
Kishimoto, and Curt Riffle
Members Absent: Pete Siemens
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Chief
Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak,
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager
Susanna Chan, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer
Woodworth, Budget & Analysis Manager Carmen Narayanan, Finance
Manager Andrew Taylor, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington,
Visitor Services Manager Matt Anderson, Planning Manager Jane Mark,
Land & Facilities Manager Michael Jurich, Engineering & Construction
Manager Jay Lin, Human Resources Manager Candice Basnight,
Information Systems & Technology Manager Casey Hiatt, Public Affairs
Manager Kori Skinner, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Budget
Analyst I Lupe Hernandez, and Budget Analyst I Elissa Martinez
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Paul Hansen representing the Arrowhead Co-op near Fremont Older spoke regarding the need
for additional fire protection efforts in and near Fremont Older.
Meeting 19-30 Page 2
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Siemens absent)
BOARD BUSINESS
1. Implementation Status of the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
(FOSM) Recommendations (R-19-162)
Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak provided the staff
presentation and reviewed the implementation status of the Financial and Operational
Sustainability Model Study (FOSM) recommendations, including the number of
recommendations complete (53) and the remaining recommendations that are underway (7).
Director Riffle inquired whether staff has examined whether the recommendations are still
relevant to the District and if staff is considering a second iteration of the FOSM.
General Manager Ana Ruiz reported staff is adapting the recommendations currently underway
to the District’s current needs. Ms. Ruiz reported staff is also looking at whether to complete a
FOSM update in the coming fiscal year or next.
Mr. Jaskulak reviewed the projected increases to staff as outlined in the FOSM and how these
were and are projected to be implemented based on current needs.
Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested additional staff may be needed in the General Manager’s
Office and Public Affairs Departments to help support increased community outreach.
Ms. Ruiz commented that some of the public outreach efforts are supported in other departments
as well, and outside consultant assistance is also a consideration. Staff will monitor whether
additional staff is needed.
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone reported on two positions in Visitor Services that
support public outreach, and Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan reported that the
Planning Department is providing support to the La Honda Public Access Working Group.
Director Kishimoto spoke regarding the roles of ranger staff in patrolling preserves and
supporting the education and interpretive elements of public access and suggested some of these
roles and duties may need to be institutionalized in order to continue to provide similar services
and information throughout the District and as the staff grows.
Vice-President Holman inquired about communications training for new staff members.
Ms. Ruiz reported that new staff do participate in a formal onboarding process and also in media
training on a periodic basis.
Public comments opened at 9:40 a.m.
Meeting 19-30 Page 3
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 9:40 a.m.
No Board action required.
2. Environmental Scan and Fiscal Year 2020-21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives
(R-19-163)
Ms. Ruiz described the purpose and process used to develop the annual environmental scan.
Ms. Chan described key themes of the environmental scan, including the District’s continued
strong financial position, a need to invest in cybersecurity, continued recruitment and retention
challenges, increasing project complexity creating higher costs and longer timelines, and the
impacts of increased public access. Ms. Chan presented both internal and external strengths,
challenges & barriers, and opportunities for the District.
Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired regarding the benefits to the District of participating in cross-
organizational activities.
Ms. Chan reported that as the District supports its partners, it builds relationships and can gain
partner support for future District projects.
Vice-President Holman requested and received an update on mitigation measures related to the
Highway 17 crossing projects. Vice-President Holman suggested staff provide a written update
on this project at a future Board meeting.
Vice-President Holman suggested partnering with other agencies related to transportation to help
solve preserve parking issues and encourage public transit to access District preserves. Vice-
President Holman also suggested increasing District familiarity with building codes related to
historic buildings to assist with the management of District structures in the future.
Director Kishimoto suggested including real-time parking data on the District’s website related
to parking at District preserves, such as Rancho San Antonio.
Board members also made suggestions for additional strengths, challenges & barriers, and
opportunities.
Challenges and barriers discussed included maintaining continuity of service as the District’s
administrative office is relocated; being responsive to the diverse and rapidly changing social
and physical environment; being mindful about maintaining the rural nature of the coastal area as
the bayside area becomes more urban; acting as a regional leader in addressing climate change
impacts; continuing District work related to diversity, equity, and inclusivity; addressing project
desires and concerns with local communities and neighbors; staff’s ability to continue to live and
work in the region related to housing and transportation; the impact of traffic on preserve
visitors; and farmer and agricultural workforce housing.
Opportunities covered included regional leadership; working with healthcare partners to promote
the benefits of open space; advocacy related to climate change; creating cost efficiencies by
Meeting 19-30 Page 4
working with other agencies; and being more proactive in strategic communications by setting
context for District actions and policy changes when informing the public of those decisions.
Vice-President Holman suggested reducing the number of acronyms used by the District in its
communications rather assuming members of the public know their meaning.
Public comments opened at 10:25 a.m.
Paul Hansen spoke in support of the District’s mission and urged the District to maintain the
infrastructure needed to support the District’s land acquisitions, especially related to wildfire
protection.
Daniel Olstein spoke in support of recent District projects, including Bear Creek Redwoods and
Tunitas Creek Beach, and proposed projects, such as Johnston Ranch, Bay-to-Sea trail
connections, and Cloverdale Ranch. Mr. Olstein spoke in support of wildlife connectivity
through the Coyote Valley and along Highway 17.
Public comments closed at 10:31 a.m.
Mr. Jaskulak reviewed the current goals and objectives included in the Strategic Plan and
outlined staff’s proposal to realign the Strategic Plan around the District’s mission statements
and programs.
Mr. Malone reviewed the current goals and objectives included in the Strategic Plan and
proposed edits.
The Board recessed at 11:49 a.m. and reconvened at 12:06 p.m. with Directors Cyr, Hassett,
Holman, Kersteen-Tucker, Kishimoto, and Riffle present.
The Board of Directors reviewed the Strategic Plan and made edits to the language of the goals
and objectives.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to adopt the Fiscal Year
2020-21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives, as amended.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Siemens absent)
3. Draft Questions for Benchmark Survey (R-19-164)
Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner reviewed the purpose and process for the benchmark
survey. The benchmark survey will provide a baseline measure and would be repeated in
approximately eighteen months to two years.
Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested including Golden Gate Recreation Area as one of the other
park areas listed in the survey to understand public recognition of the District and our partners.
Director Riffle suggested asking respondents about their priorities, why they value open space,
whether the District is addressing issues they feel is appropriate, and whether it is necessary for
the District to differentiate itself from other land preservation agencies.
Meeting 19-30 Page 5
Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired how information will be used to differentiate views between
the different wards, if these exist.
Ms. Skinner reported that the responses will inform District communication as a whole and
related to areas of the District but may not change messages for individual wards because the
survey may not be able to give detailed information based on the ward boundaries.
Public comments opened at 1:30 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 1:30 p.m.
No Board action required.
4. Board Exploratory Topics (R-19-165)
Ms. Ruiz commented that the Board has raised several topics in the last few months for initial
Board discussion before directing staff to research them further, with one topic being the
potential pursuit of a private fundraising effort.
Ms. Ruiz reported a potential parks bond measure is being planned for the 2022 ballot by various
open space and parks organizations, including East Bay Regional Parks District, Santa Clara
Valley Open Space Authority, Santa Clara County Parks, San Mateo Resource Conservation
District, etc.
Mr. Jaskulak provided a review of the District’s experience with private fundraising and
concerns raised by the District’s consultant who provided training to the Board and staff related
to private fundraising. Mr. Jaskulak raised several issues the Board will need to consider when
deciding whether to pursue private fundraising, including lack of staff time and experience,
whether private fundraising would be prioritized over project completion, competing for funds
with partner organizations, etc.
Vice-President Holman stated that she did not view private fundraising as being in competition
with Vision Plan or Measure AA projects and would provide individuals another option for
supporting the District and its projects.
Director Riffle stated he does not feel private fundraising is a high priority for the District. If
needed, a separate organization could be created for fundraising projects in partnership with the
District.
Director Kersteen-Tucker stated she is not interested in the District committing staff time to
private fundraising.
Director Kishimoto spoke in support of working with outside groups to support projects by
cultivating “friends of” groups for projects, similar to the Friends of Bear Creek Stables or
Umunhum Conservancy, where a memorandum of understanding could be negotiated to provide
support for projects.
Meeting 19-30 Page 6
Director Cyr expressed reluctance to involving the District in private fundraising.
Director Hassett expressed hesitancy related to District pursuit of private fundraising citing
competition with other fundraising organizations and limitations placed on funds received from
private fundraisers.
Ms. Ruiz suggested waiting on any pursuit of private fundraising until after a decision has been
made related to a potential 2022 parks bond measure.
By consensus the Board decided not to pursue private fundraising options until resolution of a
potential 2022 parks bond measure.
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth reviewed previous training
topics and training sessions held by the Board and suggested options for future training
opportunities.
The Board members suggested various ideas for training topics, including those related to how to
effectively communicate with other elected officials, science-based and ecological topics
regarding natural resources and land management, and inviting POST President Walter Moore to
come present on the District’s partnership with that organization.
Ms. Woodworth reported she will poll the Board to get any other training suggestions and work
with staff to include the Board in lunchtime “brown bag” presentations on topics of interest that
are currently presented at the staff level.
Finally Ms. Ruiz commented on the many regional issues that affect District residents and the
District’s ability to successfully complete projects.
Vice-President Holman suggested working with POST or other organizations to hold a
symposium to bring together organizations to discuss these topics on a larger scale and with a
larger audience.
Director Kishimoto commented on work being done by the Bay Area Open Space Council to
discuss regional issues and the ability for the District to be a regional player and bring the topic
of open space into the conversation.
Director Kersteen-Tucker commented on issues that directly affect coastal residents and the need
to be a positive and productive partner on the coast, including potential development of a Coastal
Good Neighbor policy. Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in favor of discussing issues unique to
the coast that may arise as the District opens more coastal areas to public access.
Director Riffle spoke in favor of prioritizing regional topics for discussion and potential areas
where the District can lead or participate in addressing regional issues in the next several years.
Director Kishimoto commented that the District can play a larger role in discussions along the
coast as a county-led strategic plan is developed.
Vice-President Holman spoke in favor of holding further discussions at the Board level to ensure
Board and staff members are all clear on the District’s message related to regional topics.
Meeting 19-30 Page 7
Ms. Ruiz reported staff will work on this topic further and return to the Board with additional
information for discussion at a future Board meeting.
Public comments opened at 3:00 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 3:00 p.m.
No Board action required.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 3:01 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
December 11, 2019
Board Meeting 19-31
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION
Vice-President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 6:00 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: General Manager Ana Ruiz
Public comments opened at 6:00 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 6:00 p.m.
1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code
Section 54957(b)(1)
Title of Employee: General Manager
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-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 19-31 Page 2
Vice-President Holman called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 7:05 p.m.
Vice-President Holman reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was
taken.
General Counsel Hilary Stevenson confirmed with President Siemens that there is a meeting
agenda posted at his location, that the location is reasonably accessible to the public, such that
any member of the public could participate, and that no members of the public are currently at
the teleconference location that would like to participate in the public comment portion of the
meeting.
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: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian
Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services
Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer
Woodworth
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Gorka Sandowski spoke in favor of allowing e-bikes in District preserves.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to adopt the
agenda.
VOTE: 7-0-0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Public comment opened at 7:09 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 7:09 p.m.
Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve
the Consent Calendar.
VOTE: 7-0-0
Meeting 19-31 Page 3
1. Approve November 20, 2019 Minutes
2. Claims Report
BOARD BUSINESS
3. Award of Contracts to Two Firms for On-Call Environmental Consulting Services
(R-19-158)
Planner III Aaron Peth provided the staff presentation describing the upcoming projects requiring
CEQA review and the types of CEQA consulting services needed. Mr. Peth described the
process used to solicit the various firms to provide CEQA services and the qualifications of the
two firms selected.
Director Riffle inquired if using the on-call CEQA firms will help save staff time and shorten the
project process.
Mr. Peth reported that the proposed contracts are designed to save staff time, which will help
shorten the time needed to complete District projects.
Director Hassett requested clarification regarding how tasks will be distributed to the two firms
and spoke in support of making sure funds are allocated evenly.
Mr. Peth explained tasks will be assigned and reported that the contract budget balance is a
factor in selecting which firm will work on a specific project.
Vice-President Holman requested additional clarification regarding how projects will be
assigned.
General Manager Ana Ruiz reported that various factors are taken into account when assigning
tasks, including expertise, availability, and available balance. Using these factors, staff will
rotate assignments accordingly.
Vice-President Holman requested that for future reports a list of qualified respondents be
included with the Board report.
Public comments opened at 7:29 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 7:29 p.m.
Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to authorize
the General Manager to enter into contracts for on-call environmental consulting services with
AECOM and Ascent Environmental for amounts not-to-exceed $100,000 each through the end
of Fiscal Year 2021-22.
VOTE: 7-0-0
Meeting 19-31 Page 4
4. Renewal of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Software Licenses (R-19-160)
GIS Program Administrator Jamie Hawk provided an overview of the District’s use of enterprise
GIS, which creates staff efficiency by allowing the District to centralize data and information,
creating a collaborative platform for gathering information, and expanding access to data and
analysis for staff use. Additional user licenses are needed in order to increase the number of
users gathering information for District use.
Director Hassett and Vice-President Holman spoke in favor of more detailed ward maps to help
voters understand in which ward they reside.
Public comments opened at 7:38 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 7:38 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to authorize
the General Manager to renew a Three-Year Small County and Municipality Government
Enterprise License Agreement with Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., for an
amount not to exceed $137,500.
VOTE: 7-0-0
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• MAA13 Cloverdale Coastal Ranch Land Conservation Opportunities: Work Completed
to Date, Timeline, and Next Steps
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
No Committee reports
B. Staff Reports
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone provided an update on an evaluation of a road near
Blackberry Hill Road as requested by nearby residents. The road is not a viable option as an
escape route because it does not exit the preserve. Mr. Malone also provided an update related to
fire prevention options in the Fremont Older area.
Ms. Ruiz reported a future parks bond workshop being organized for spring 2020 with more
information to be provided when available and provided updates on recent meetings with elected
officials and agencies to partner and leverage resources.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
Meeting 19-31 Page 5
Director Riffle thanked staff for their work supporting the La Honda Public Access Working
Group.
The members of the Board thanked staff for their efforts planning and presenting at the Board
retreat on Monday.
Director Kishimoto spoke regarding the upcoming Green Streets Conference tentatively planned
for February.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-President Holman adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 7:52 p.m.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
FINANCING AUTHORITY
President Siemens called the meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Financing Authority to order at 8:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Pete Siemens, Yoriko Kishimoto, Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, and Santa Clara
County Supervisor Joe Simitian
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Executive Director Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson,
Financing Authority Secretary Jennifer Woodworth
1. Acceptance of the Annual Financial Report of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District Financing Authority for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2019 (R-151)
District Controller Mike Foster provided the staff presentation describing the formation and
purpose of the Financing Authority.
Motion: Director Simitian moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to accept the
Annual Financial Report.
VOTE: 5-0-0
President Siemens adjourned the meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Financing Authority at 8:05 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
December 18, 2019
Board Meeting 19-32
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
Vice-President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 10:31 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, and Yoriko
Kishimoto
Members Absent: Jed Cyr, Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Susanna Chan, District Clerk/Assistant to the General
Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Planner III
Gretchen Laustsen
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No speakers present.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to adopt the
agenda.
VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Cyr, Riffle, and Siemens absent)
BOARD BUSINESS
1. Caltrans Funding Opportunity to Support the Ravenswood Bay Trail Project –
Related to a Bay Conservation and Development Commission Permit Requirement for the
Meeting 19-32 Page 2
Caltrans San Mateo 101 Express Lanes Project to Fund Public Access Improvements (R-
19-166)
Planner III Gretchen Laustsen provided the staff report describing the potential funding available
from Caltrans for the Ravenswood Bay Trail project. The potential funding is a Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit condition for a Caltrans project to
establish express or High-Occupancy Toll lanes in each direction along Highway 101 in San
Mateo County.
Director Holman requested clarification regarding the type of funding available.
Ms. Laustsen reported that the funding is not a mitigation fee but is part of the BCDC permit
requirement to fund public access.
Director Hassett inquired if other agencies would be competing for the same funding.
Ms. Laustsen reported San Mateo County Parks staff has stated they do not intend to pursue the
potential funding.
Director Holman inquired regarding any conditions placed on the potential funding by Caltrans
and if any conditions would be brought back to the Board for approval.
General Manager Ana Ruiz reported that because timing is short for negotiating the funding
agreement, staff will be negotiating based on Board direction and to meet the District’s best
interest. If an agreement could not be reached on those terms, then the District would not enter
into an agreement.
General Counsel Hilary Stevenson provided additional clarification of the type of funds being
pursued explaining that it is not mitigation funding related to an environmental impact, but to
meet BCDC’s requirement to provide public or visual access to the San Francisco Bay.
The Board members requested clarification regarding the Caltrans project and whether additional
traffic lanes will be added to Highway 101.
Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan reported that the traffic improvements will take place
within the Caltrans right-of-way. Most improvements will involve converting existing lanes into
carpool/high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. Ms. Chan provided additional information regarding
the type of potential funding being considered explaining BCDC typically requires a project to
provide public access. If the project does not provide public access, then an in-lieu fee is required
to be paid to support other public access projects, as is the case for the Caltrans project.
Public comments opened at 11:03 a.m.
No speakers present
Public comments closed at 11:03 a.m.
Vice-President Holman suggested the resolution be modified to clarify that the carpool/HOT
lanes will be created through conversion of exiting lanes and stay in the Caltrans right-way-way.
Meeting 19-32 Page 3
Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in favor of pursuing the Caltrans funding to support public
access through the Ravenswood Bay Trail project.
Vice-President Holman suggested modifying the resolution to state BCDC identified the
District’s Ravenswood Bay Trail project as an eligible project for in-lieu funding by Caltrans.
The Board members agreed to the modifications to the resolution.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to adopt an
amended resolution authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and execute a funding
agreement with Caltrans.
VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Cyr, Riffle, and Siemens absent)
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-President Holman adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 11:23 a.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
January 8, 2020
Board Meeting 20-01
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION
Vice-President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 6:00 p.m.
Director Riffle recused himself from participating in this potential transaction between POST
and the District due to his employment with POST, which is categorized as a remote interest
under California Government Code section 1091.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, and Yoriko
Kishimoto
Members Absent: Pete Siemens and Curt Riffle
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Susanna Chan, Real Property Manager Mike Williams,
Planner III Elish Ryan
Public comments opened at 6:00 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 6:00 p.m.
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54956.8)
Property: San Mateo County APN: 066-280-050
Agency Negotiator: Mike Williams, Real Property Manager
Negotiating Party: Ben Wright, Peninsula Open Space Trust
Under Negotiation: Terms and Conditions
Meeting 20-01 Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 6:53 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Vice-President Holman called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 7:00 p.m.
Vice-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, and Curt Riffle
Members Absent: Pete Siemens
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Susanna Chan, Chief Financial Officer/Director of
Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the
General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Natural Resources Manager Kirk
Lenington, Visitor Services Manager Matt Anderson, Interpretation &
Education Program Manager Renée Fitzsimons, Public Affairs Manager
Kori Skinner
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No speakers present.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
• Introduction of staff
o Ivana Vento, Administrative Assistant
o Elizabeth Storey, Administrative Assistant
o Ellen Tjosvold, Interpretive Specialist
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Siemens absent)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Public comment opened at 7:10 p.m.
Meeting 20-01 Page 3
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 7:10 p.m.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to
approve the Consent Calendar.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Siemens absent)
1. Claims Report
BOARD BUSINESS
2. Election of the Calendar Year 2020 Officers for the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District Board of Directors (R-20-01)
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth described the procedure for electing Board officers.
Public comment opened at 7:12 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 7:12 p.m.
Director Hassett nominated Director Holman for President and Director Cyr seconded the
nomination. No further nominations were presented.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to close the
nominations for Board President.
By a vote of 6 to 0, the Board elected Director Holman as Board President for Calendar Year
2020.
President Holman thanked Director Siemens for his service as Board President.
President Holman called for nominations for Board Vice President.
Director Hassett nominated Director Riffle for Vice President and Director Kersteen-Tucker
seconded the nomination. No further nominations were presented.
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to close the
nominations for Board Vice-President.
By a vote of 6 to 0, the Board elected Director Riffle as Board Vice President for Calendar Year
2020.
President Holman called for nominations for Board Treasurer.
Meeting 20-01 Page 4
Director Kersteen-Tucker nominated Director Kishimoto for Board Treasurer, and Director
Riffle seconded the nomination. No further nominations were presented.
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to close the
nominations for Board Treasurer.
By a vote of 6 to 0, the Board elected Director Kishimoto as Board Treasurer for the 2020
calendar year.
President Holman called for nominations for Board Secretary.
Director Kishimoto nominated Director Cyr for Board Secretary and Director Riffle seconded
the nomination. No further nominations were presented.
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to close the
nominations for Board Secretary.
By a vote of 6 to 0, the Board elected Director Cyr as Board Secretary for Calendar Year 2020.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Siemens absent)
Director Hassett suggested the guidelines outlined in the Board report be updated to read that the
Board President and Vice-President could be rather than would be nominated based on the
amount of time since a District ward was last represented as either Board officer.
Ms. Woodworth reported that the guidelines are not Board policy, and the Board is not bound by
them. Ms. Woodworth confirmed that the guidelines can be updated for the next year to read as
follows:
1. The Director representing the ward, which ward has not held the position of president for
the longest duration of time, could be nominated to serve as the Board President.
2. If the Director representing that ward is newly elected, he/she could serve as the Board
Vice-President to allow sufficient opportunity to become familiarized with the Board and
District before serving as Board President.
3. The ward that has the second longest duration of time since serving as president could be
nominated to serve as vice-president.
3. Consideration of a Special Recognition honoring docent Chris MacIntosh for her
long-standing 40 years of volunteer service with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District (R-20-04)
Interpretation & Education Program Manager Renée Fitzsimons provided the staff report
describing the 40 years of service docent Chris MacIntosh has provided to the District to date.
Public comments opened at 7:29 p.m.
Paul Billig spoke in support of his request to name a trail for Chris MacIntosh to honor her 40
years of volunteer service to the District. Mr. Billig described the trail for proposed naming and
the hikes Ms. MacIntosh leads along the trail.
Meeting 20-01 Page 5
June Cancell shared a letter from Kathryn Strachota that highlighted Chris MacIntosh’s years of
service as a docent and supported naming a trail for Chris MacIntosh.
Katherine Greene spoke in support of naming a trail for Chris MacIntosh to recognize and
acknowledge her achievements and the importance of the docent program.
Mary Bernstein spoke in support of naming a trail for Chris MacIntosh.
Chris MacIntosh thanked the Board and District for considering naming a trail after her in
recognition of her service. She described her hikes along the trail and shared her positive
experiences from volunteering as a docent for the District.
Public comments closed at 7:44 p.m.
Director Hassett reported on the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee’s
recommendation to support naming a trail after Chris MacIntosh.
Director Riffle spoke in favor of naming the trail for Chris MacIntosh.
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to
1. Approve naming an existing 0.5-mile, narrow unnamed trail that starts at the North Ridge
Parking Lot at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve the “Chris MacIntosh Trail”
to honor docent Chris MacIntosh for her 40 years of volunteer service.
2. Approve the issuance of a proclamation acknowledging Chris MacIntosh’s remarkable
docent service achievement.
3. Hold a small, informal dedication onsite in 2020.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Siemens absent)
The Board recessed at 7:56 p.m. and reconvened at 8:03 p.m. with Directors Cyr, Hassett,
Holman, Kersteen-Tucker, Kishimoto, and Riffle present.
4. Science Advisory Panel Topics (R-20-05)
Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington introduced the representatives of the Science
Advisory Panel (SAP): Lydia Vaughn, Erica Spotswood, and Stephanie Panlasigui from the San
Francisco Estuary Institute. Mr. Lenington presented the staff report describing the project to
date and proposed process to be used by the SAP, including topic selection, development of the
scope and budget for topic study, research, and reporting back to District staff and Board of
Directors. Mr. Lenington reported the suggested topics were reviewed by the Planning and
Natural Resources Committee and subsequently further refined based on the budget, amount of
time needed to complete the project, available scientific research, etc.
President Holman requested staff clarify on the work deliverables that the Science Advisory
Panel will be creating.
Mr. Lenington reported the deliverable for all the proposed topics will be a summary of existing
research describing the current scientific understating of a topic. No field research would be
conducted, but proposed methods of collecting field data could be described if future field
research is recommended or of interest for a particular topic.
Meeting 20-01 Page 6
Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested the research topic related to grazing include research into
alternative options for grassland management other than grazing.
Ms. Spotswood presented the proposed topics for study describing each proposed topic to be
researched, timeline for completing research, type of research to be conducted, and an overview
of information currently available.
Director Riffle inquired how other partners may be included in the process.
Ms. Spotswood reported the SAP will learn about partner agency programs as part of the initial
phase of research.
Mr. Lenington reported the SAP and staff will reach out to District partners to inform them of the
SAP research topics and process.
Board members requested and received clarification of the various research topics and their
scopes of research.
Ms. Spotswood and Mr. Lenington reported the SAP will be working with staff to further define
and refine the topics to address District needs, budget, current scientific knowledge available,
etc.
Public comments opened at 8:52 p.m.
Peter Cnudde provided comments regarding the impact of cattle grazing on climate change and
spoke against District support of cattle grazing. Mr. Cnudde spoke in support of researching
alternatives to cattle grazing for grassland management.
Pat Caffiello spoke in support of the District’s mission and against subsidized cattle grazing on
public land stating that it negatively affects climate change, riparian areas, etc. Mr. Caffiello
spoke in favor of studying alternatives to cattle grazing for grassland management.
Deniz Bolbol spoke against cattle grazing on District land and in favor of phasing out cattle
grazing. Ms. Bolbol spoke in favor of studying the negative impacts of cattle grazing on the
natural habitat.
Vinay Rao spoke regarding the negative impact of cattle grazing on biodiversity, soil quality, etc.
Janie Ryan spoke against cattle grazing on District land and to broaden the research scope to
study the repercussions of cattle grazing.
Kathleen Yoon spoke in favor of the SAP studying other options to cattle grazing and the impact
of cattle grazing on wildlife. Ms. Yoon spoke in favor of studying the natural biodiversity of
District lands.
Andres Gonzalez spoke against cattle grazing in the Bay Area.
Meeting 20-01 Page 7
Mohan Gurunathan spoke in favor of studying the impacts of cattle grazing and spoke against
cattle grazing.
Kathleen Willey spoke against livestock grazing on public lands due to negative wildlife
impacts.
Debbie Parsons spoke in favor of ending the livestock grazing program on coastal lands and in
favor of the SAP further studying the impact of grazing on wildlife.
Public comments closed at 9:10 p.m.
General Manager Ana Ruiz provided information related to the District’s expansion into the San
Mateo coastside and mission to preserve agricultural lands and rural character of the area and
encourage viable use of agricultural land resources. This mission was embedded in the
conditions of approval for that expansion, in the coastside mission statement, and in other legal
documents. Cattle grazing is part of the District’s conservation grazing program for managing
vast coastal grasslands and allows the District to continue to preserve and manage open space
lands in a cost-effective manner. If the District is not actively meeting its coastside
commitments, then it may not be able to continue preserving additional open space on the
coastside in the future to protect important wildlife corridors, salmonid habitat, sensitive coastal
grasslands, and other important natural resources that sustain the region’s biodiversity. The
District seeks the knowledge and expertise of a panel of unbiased scientific experts to study the
topic and provide the District with important findings to inform on land management decisions.
Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke regarding the agricultural heritage of the San Mateo Coast.
Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of expanding the scope of study to include alternatives to
cattle grazing for land management.
Director Kishimoto suggested studying how to monitor changes in bacteria at the landscape in
addition to monitoring plants and animals.
Mr. Lenington suggested the scope could be broadened to monitor biodiversity, but the cost of
the monitoring program would likely be extremely high and cost prohibitive.
Director Hassett suggested including a study of alternate options for grazing tenants other than
cattle grazing in order to help maintain the rural character of the coastside area.
Director Riffle inquired how members of the public can continue to be engaged in the process.
Mr. Lenington stated the SAP may provide an interim informational update to confirm the scope
of study. When the information is received from the SAP, the District will use public meetings
and other methods to inform the public of the results.
Ms. Ruiz stated the Board and staff will also need to study and carefully evaluate the trade-offs
that would impact the District’s ability to preserve additional acreage of open space lands on the
coastside if grazing is no longer used as a tool for land management.
Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to
Meeting 20-01 Page 8
1. Authorize the General Manager to direct the Science Advisory Panel to prepare scientific
reviews for the following three topics:
• How can the District effectively and efficiently monitor changes in priority plant and
animal populations at the landscape scale?
• What are the visitation and recreational use benefits and trade-offs to fulfilling
District goals, including natural resource protection and ecologically-sensitive public
enjoyment and education?
• Review of cattle grazing benefits and impacts:
• What is the net climate impact of cattle grazing (e.g., potential increase in soil
carbon minus cattle methane emissions)? What are the District’s options,
such as grazing regimes or dietary additives, to reduce emissions from cattle
grazing?
• What are the current scientific results on the effectiveness of managing
grasslands and reducing fire risk with cattle grazing?
• How does cattle grazing as a land management strategy compare to
alternatives in achieving District goals including climate protection and what
are the trade-offs?
2. Retain the remaining 10 topics as reviewed by the Planning and Natural Resources
Committee for future consideration when the Year 2 Science Advisory Panel work plan is
discussed in 2020.
3. Direct staff to return to the Board with the refined topics and definition of the SAP
deliverables and provide periodic updates.
Friendly amendment: Director Kishimoto suggested altering question 1 to read “How can the
District effectively and efficiently monitor changes in biodiversity populations at the landscape
scale?”
Mr. Lenington suggested staff could return with additional information for an expanded scope
after discussing the topic with the SAP. However, the cost prohibitive nature of monitoring soil
bacteria would likely prevent the District from being able to monitor it. He suggested focusing
on key indicators among plants and animals.
President Holman suggested returning to this topic after the SAP has completed a year of study
and has a better understanding of the topic.
Director Kishimoto withdrew her friendly amendment.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Siemens absent)
5. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Compensation (R-20-03)
General Counsel Hilary Stevenson provided the staff report describing the legal requirement for
the Board to make annual findings related to the number of compensable meetings per month.
The Board may also consider directing staff to draft an ordinance to increase the Board’s per
meeting compensation up to 5% from $100 per meeting to $105. Finally, the Board may direct
staff to make additional changes to the Board policy related to defining compensable meetings,
health insurance, etc.
Meeting 20-01 Page 9
Director Riffle spoke in favor of compensating up to six meetings a month and spoke against
increasing the amount of Board compensation. Director Riffle suggested any additional policy
changes be referred to the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee for further
discussion.
Director Hassett spoke in favor of increasing Board compensation because the law has not been
amended since 1984, and the low amount of compensation may be prohibitive for some to serve
on the Board of Directors.
Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested modifying the mileage reimbursement allowances to be for
all District meetings, not only those not held at the administrative office.
Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak reported the District policy is that anything in excess of
the normal commute is reimbursable, and for the Board the administrative office is considered
the normal commute.
Public comments opened at 10:11 p.m.
No speakers present
Public comments closed at 10:11 p.m.
Motion: Director Holman moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to:
1. Adopt a Resolution making annual findings required by law that up to six compensable
Board meetings per month are necessary for the effective operation of the agency.
2. Direct the General Manager and General Counsel to prepare and introduce an ordinance
increasing Board compensation by five percent from $100.00 to $105.00 per meeting,
consistent with current law.
3. Direct the General Counsel to compile a list of compensable meetings.
4. Refer other possible changes to Board Policy 6.06 – Meeting Compensation, Reimbursement
of Authorized Necessary Expenses for Performance of Official Duties, and Adoption of
Ethics Training Requirements Pursuant to Government Code Section 53232 et seq.
(AB1234), including additional research on mileage reimbursement options, to the
Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee for further deliberation.
A. Additional research regarding mileage reimbursement.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Siemens absent)
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
No Committee reports.
B. Staff Reports
Ms. Woodworth reported the Planning and Natural Resources meeting for January 14, 2020 will
now be an offsite visit.
Meeting 20-01 Page 10
Mr. Jaskulak reported on the Measure AA Annual Accountability report that was provided to the
Board of Directors and will be reviewed by the Bond Oversight Committee.
Ms. Ruiz reported on a recent new article regarding the surplus land property process for 330
Distel Circle.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
Director Kersteen-Tucker passed along positive feedback from the San Mateo County Farm
Bureau related to the conservation grazing workshop held on December 17, 2019.
ADJOURNMENT
President Holman adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 10:22 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 20-02
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:52.75%
Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment
Date
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount
80894 Check 01/17/2020 10413 - DOWNTOWN FORD Ford F350 Ranger Vehicle Purchase - P125 50,812.03
1609 EFT 01/10/2020 12002 - NOLL & TAM ARCHITECTS Professional Services - New Admin Offices (AO) Facility -11/2019 47,407.85
80888 Check 01/10/2020 11382 - Winner Chevrolet Vehicle Purchase - Chevrolet Bolt - A106 37,375.58
1602 EFT 01/10/2020 11859 - Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Programmatic Environmental Permitting - November 2019 24,911.99
1593 EFT 01/10/2020 *10214 - Delta Dental Benefits -Dental Insurance - January 2020 18,108.86
1604 EFT 01/10/2020 10794 - John Northmore Roberts & Associates Bear Creek Stables Improvements - November 2019 17,472.84
80884 Check 01/10/2020 11902 - THE PROFESSIONAL TREE CARE CO.Tree removal work - Silva/Bergman/ECdM Barn ( 8 Trees)15,560.00
1600 EFT 01/10/2020 10005 - GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY Hendrys Creek Restoration 15,359.07
1586 EFT 01/10/2020 11430 - BioMaAS, Inc.Toto Biomonitoring - Pond Mgmt./Fremont Older Trapping/ID Native Plant Sites 15,072.17
1610 EFT 01/10/2020 12020 - Panorama Environmental, Inc.CEQA: Prescribed Fire Program Development 14,663.75
1630 EFT 01/17/2020 10791 - LSA Associates, Inc.Alpine Rd. CEQA/Permit Support and LHC Loop Trail Permit Support - thru November 2019 11,449.33
80862 Check 01/10/2020 10304 - LA HONDA PESCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Tax Compensatory Fee January 2020 11,398.46
1638 EFT 01/17/2020 *10216 - VALLEY OIL COMPANY Fuel for District vehicles 11,185.93
80883 Check 01/10/2020 11704 - THE PARTY HELPERS Staff Recognition Event 2019 (10-30-19)10,654.43
80881 Check 01/10/2020 11996 - SPATIAL INFORMATICS GROUP, LLC Fire Ecology Services: Prescribed Fire Program 10,254.72
80906 Check 01/17/2020 11856 - West Coast Arborists, Inc.Tree Removal at Daniels Nature Center - 12/20 - 12/23 (3)8,160.00
1617 EFT 01/10/2020 11703 - SHIFT KEY SOLUTIONS IT Training 8,000.00
1606 EFT 01/10/2020 *10419 - LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Benefit - AD&D/Life/LTD January 2020 7,978.41
1587 EFT 01/10/2020 10616 - BKF ENGINEERS ADA Barrier Removal Project 6,730.00
80868 Check 01/10/2020 10079 - PAGE & TURNBULL Historic Resources Policy Development - October/November 2019 6,561.25
80873 Check 01/10/2020 12101 - Safe2core Inc.New Administrative Office Concrete Scanning Project 6,440.00
1603 EFT 01/10/2020 10452 - IFLAND SURVEY Survey On-Call TO1 - Property Line & Record of Survey at Twin Creeks 5,605.00
1588 EFT 01/10/2020 10723 - Callander Associates Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Design & Construction Mgmt 5,499.68
1591 EFT 01/10/2020 11445 - CROSS LAND SURVEYING INC.Tabachnik Lot Split 5,436.00
1624 EFT 01/10/2020 12050 - Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.Mt. Umunhum Radar Tower Assessment Project 4,763.95
1607 EFT 01/10/2020 10791 - LSA Associates, Inc.Permitting Services for LHC Loop Trail thru September 2019 4,456.58
1601 EFT 01/10/2020 11593 - H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Alma College Bat Relocation & Habitat Replacement & Monitoring 3,840.58
1596 EFT 01/10/2020 11748 - ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY CONSULTING State Funding Consulting and Lobbying Services - December 2019 3,750.00
1628 EFT 01/17/2020 11748 - ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY CONSULTING State Funding Consulting and Lobbying Services - October 2019 3,750.00
1634 EFT 01/17/2020 11262 - SERVICE STATION SYSTEMS Diesel Pump Replacement (FFO)3,648.33
1598 EFT 01/10/2020 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Stihl Equipment Parts, repairs and new chainsaw 3,545.47
1632 EFT 01/17/2020 12031 - Ray & Jan's Mobile Truck Service 5K Service - P121, P123, A102, P114, P117M72, M208, M216, M210, M225, M214, M223, P102 3,511.93
1614 EFT 01/10/2020 12107 - San Francisco Estuary Institute Professional services from 10/1/19 to 10/31/19 3,499.14
1594 EFT 01/10/2020 11821 - DUNKINWORKS Leadership Academy (16 employees)3,407.40
80880 Check 01/10/2020 10472 - Sommer, Sandra G California Riding and Hiking Trail Research Report 3,330.00
1640 EFT 01/17/2020 *11118 - Wex Bank Fuel for District vehicles 3,318.06
80875 Check 01/10/2020 11603 - SAN MATEO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Service Fee for January 2020 3,120.22
1608 EFT 01/10/2020 11617 - MIG, INC.La Honda Public Access Working Group Facilitation Services 2,863.42
80851 Check 01/10/2020 11772 - AHERN RENTALS, INC.Dozer Rental (SA)2,409.98
1585 EFT 01/10/2020 11799 - AZTEC LEASING, INC.Printer/copier leases - 6 machines - 12/1/19 though 12/31/19 2,326.07
1622 EFT 01/10/2020 10146 - Tires On The Go P115 Tire Service/Allignment - P115, P118, M218 2,287.21
80886 Check 01/10/2020 *10309 - VERIZON WIRELESS Monthly Wireless Services 11/13 - 12/12 2,271.68
80885 Check 01/10/2020 10775 - TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC New World: ERP upgrade 2,250.00
80907 Check 01/17/2020 0000A - Carrie Andrews Refund of Security Deposit for 22322 Skyline Blvd.2,150.00
80882 Check 01/10/2020 *11730 - STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY RV Supplemental/Basic Life - January 2020 2,110.81
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 # 20-02
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:52.75%
Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment
Date
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount
Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce
check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt
by vendors
1631 EFT 01/17/2020 10253 - Peterson Tractor Co.M14 Service / bad injector 2,079.32
1584 EFT 01/10/2020 *10128 - AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION Repeater Lease - January 2020 1,990.25
1623 EFT 01/10/2020 11914 - W-TRANS On-Call Traffic Engineering - La Honda Hwy 84 Analysis 1,970.00
1612 EFT 01/10/2020 *10212 - PINNACLE TOWERS LLC Tower Rental - Sneggs Point - January 2020 1,945.05
80872 Check 01/10/2020 10194 - REED & GRAHAM INC Erosion Control (BCR-Stables)1,936.46
1582 EFT 01/10/2020 10240 - ACE FIRE EQUIPMENT & SERVICE INC SFO Annual Fire Extinguisher Maintenance 1,798.43
80891 Check 01/17/2020 12094 - City and County of San Francisco License and Consent Fee - Bay Trail Connection to Ravenswood Open Space 1,666.66
1595 EFT 01/10/2020 10546 - ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS INC Plant Maintenance, Harkins Bridge Mitigation 1,664.00
1625 EFT 01/17/2020 10240 - ACE FIRE EQUIPMENT & SERVICE INC Annual Fire Extinguisher Maintenance 1,596.36
1639 EFT 01/17/2020 *10213 - VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA Vision Premium - January 2020 1,560.58
1621 EFT 01/10/2020 11780 - TERRY J MARTIN ASSOCIATES Construction Documents, Permitting, Bidding 11/2019 1,427.00
1636 EFT 01/17/2020 10107 - SUNNYVALE FORD P98 Vehicle Repair 1,405.73
1599 EFT 01/10/2020 11612 - GOODWIN CONSULTING GROUP, INC.GO Bond & Continuing Disclosure Services FY2019-20 1,350.00
1579 EFT 01/10/2020 11434 - 2M ASSOCIATES Historic Resources Policy Dev: Consultant Proj Mgr Services 1,330.00
80867 Check 01/10/2020 10578 - OLD REPUBLIC TITLE CO Title/Escrow Fees - Giusti 1,310.95
1619 EFT 01/10/2020 10107 - SUNNYVALE FORD P88 Vehicle Service Repair - P88, P121, P94, P105 1,299.70
1616 EFT 01/10/2020 10793 - Sherwood Design Engineers La Honda Creek Loop Trails 1,260.00
1597 EFT 01/10/2020 11545 - ERIN ASHFORD PHOTOGRAPHY LLC Holiday Party Photography + group photo 1,250.00
80864 Check 01/10/2020 11889 - MILLER MANAGEMENT& CONSULTING GROUP Master Municipal Clerk Board Academy 1,225.00
80871 Check 01/10/2020 10195 - REDWOOD GENERAL TIRE CO INC M204 New Tires 1,195.09
1626 EFT 01/17/2020 10830 - BIMARK INC.Qty 300 Lapel tack w/military clutch and production proof 1,181.57
80852 Check 01/10/2020 11863 - ALBION ENVIRONMENTAL INC Mud Lake Construction Improvements November 2019 1,040.11
80902 Check 01/17/2020 *10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service (RSACP-EQ)1,020.35
80904 Check 01/17/2020 10338 - THE ED JONES CO INC 4 Ranger Flat Badges 909.44
1592 EFT 01/10/2020 10032 - DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE Construction Cleanup at Bergman Main House 875.00
80887 Check 01/10/2020 11852 - WESTERN EXTERMINATOR CO.Exterminator Service (RSA-Annex)853.00
80905 Check 01/17/2020 10527 - WASTE MANAGEMENT Garbage Service - AO 824.04
1605 EFT 01/10/2020 12040 - JW Heating and Air Conditioning HVAC Trouble-Shoot/Repair at 2200 Lobitos Creek Rd 805.00
80879 Check 01/10/2020 11732 - SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY Slender False Brome Research 755.23
80869 Check 01/10/2020 11129 - PETERSON TRUCKS INC.M15 Hydraulics Repair 698.51
80903 Check 01/17/2020 11054 - SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Trainings - 3 employees 690.00
80896 Check 01/17/2020 11789 - GLADWELL GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, INC.Records Management Improvement Plan 628.50
80892 Check 01/17/2020 11530 - COASTSIDE.NET Skyline Broadband 01/01/2020 - 01/31/2020 550.00
80870 Check 01/10/2020 10176 - RE BORRMANN'S STEEL CO Tubing for Water Tank Frame 503.13
80861 Check 01/10/2020 10051 - JIM DAVIS AUTOMOTIVE M204 AC Repair 492.30
1581 EFT 01/10/2020 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE Stevens Canyon Ranch House Septic Tank Cleaning 475.00
80874 Check 01/10/2020 *10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service (BCR)474.36
80890 Check 01/17/2020 10261 - ADT LLC (Protection One)Alarm Services For AO, AO2, AO3, AO4 And Cristo Rey 469.86
80854 Check 01/10/2020 10014 - CCOI GATE & FENCE Gate Repair (RSACP)461.64
1583 EFT 01/10/2020 10082 - Advantage Anaheim Printing and Mailing Services FY 19-20 457.80
1633 EFT 01/17/2020 11479 - Rootid, LLC Website Support and Maintenance 378.00
1627 EFT 01/17/2020 11975 - CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING LABORATORIES BCR Public Access-Material Testing and Construction Inspections 371.28
80900 Check 01/17/2020 10935 - RICE TRUCKING-SOIL FARM Water Delivery to Toto 371.01
1590 EFT 01/10/2020 11318 - CONFLUENCE RESTORATION Bear Creek Redwoods Plant Installation & Maintenance - Nov 2019 360.00
80889 Check 01/17/2020 12041 - A T & T Mobility (FirstNet)EOC Emergency Phones (8)354.21
page 2 of 4
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 20-02
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:52.75%
Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment
Date
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount
Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce
check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt
by vendors
80850 Check 01/10/2020 10261 - ADT LLC (Protection One)Alarm Service (FFO)348.25
80895 Check 01/17/2020 11607 - GFOA Membership Renewal 3/1/2020-2/28/2021 (S. Jaskulak)280.00
1629 EFT 01/17/2020 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Chainsaw Safety Gear 265.31
80849 Check 01/10/2020 12090 - Action Towing Vehicle Tow P98 262.50
80863 Check 01/10/2020 11957 - MATTOX, JANIS Reimburse Tenant For Water Filters at Bectel 239.94
1615 EFT 01/10/2020 11920 - Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.Bio On-Call Task Order 2 - Mud Lake Bio Monitoring 239.75
1613 EFT 01/10/2020 11519 - PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP Burkhart - December 2019 236.50
1589 EFT 01/10/2020 11013 - Confidence UST Services, Inc.Monthly Fuel Tank Inspection (SAO-Cristich)230.00
80901 Check 01/17/2020 10151 - SAFETY KLEEN SYSTEMS INC Solvent Tank Service (FFO)216.90
80866 Check 01/10/2020 10160 - OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Calendar Order 207.18
80855 Check 01/10/2020 10168 - CINTAS Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)185.41
80865 Check 01/10/2020 10461 - NORTHGATE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT On-Call Hazmat- Task Order 1 - SAO Soil Testing 157.75
1580 EFT 01/10/2020 12052 - 4984 EL Camino LLC A02/A03/A04 Base Tax Year - January 2020 154.00
1635 EFT 01/17/2020 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Drain Rock/Gravel Bags (BCR Stables)143.23
1618 EFT 01/10/2020 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Culvert Rock (BCR)130.67
80856 Check 01/10/2020 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC P118 Vehicle Service 120.48
80853 Check 01/10/2020 11048 - ARC PPC Bond -Half Size, Edge Binding 110.23
80876 Check 01/10/2020 11005 - SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT Sears Ranch Parking lot Stormwater Operation & Maintenance Fees 100.00
80877 Check 01/10/2020 11005 - SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT Mindego Parking lot Stormwater Operation & Maintenance Fees 100.00
80878 Check 01/10/2020 11005 - SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT ECDM Parking lot Stormwater Operation & Maintenance Fees 100.00
80859 Check 01/10/2020 10421 - ID PLUS INC Uniform For District 98.50
80897 Check 01/17/2020 10421 - ID PLUS INC Name tags 98.50
80858 Check 01/10/2020 10153 - FEDEX OFFICE Shipping - AO/A03 92.70
1620 EFT 01/10/2020 10152 - Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies (RSA)85.91
80899 Check 01/17/2020 10176 - RE BORRMANN'S STEEL CO Repair Parts 60.46
80860 Check 01/10/2020 11141 - JARVIS, FAY & GIBSON LLP Legal Services Contract and Construction Issues 60.00
80857 Check 01/10/2020 11642 - Elias Khoury Level 2 Parking Citation Appeal 50.00
1611 EFT 01/10/2020 10140 - PINE CONE LUMBER CO INC Caulk and Seal 40.55
80898 Check 01/17/2020 10134 - RAYNE OF SAN JOSE Water Service (FOOSP)29.24
80893 Check 01/17/2020 11149 - DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES HOV Decals 22.00
1637 EFT 01/17/2020 11596 - Toshiba America Business Solutions Qty 4 Wide Format Paper 12.50
*Annual Claims
**Hawthorn Expenses
A### = Administrative Office Vehicle HR = Human Resources P### = Patrol Vehicle SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail
AO2, AO3, AO4 = Leased Office Space IPM = Invasive Plant Maintenance PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area
BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods ISM = Invasive Species Management PIC= Picchetti Ranch SFO = Skyline Field Office
CAO = Coastal Area Office LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap
CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge RR = Russian Ridge SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill
DHF = Dear Hollow Farm LT = Los Trancos RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill SR= Skyline Ridge
ECdM = El Corte de Madera M### = Maintenance Vehicle RSA = Rancho San Antonio T### = Tractor or Trailer
ES = El Sereno MB = Monte Bello RV = Ravenswood TC = Tunitas Creek
FFO = Foothills Field Office MR = Miramontes Ridge SA = Sierra Azul TH = Teague Hill
FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pres.OSP = Open Space Preserve SAO = South Area Outpost TW = Thornewood
Abbreviations
page 3 of 4
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 20-02
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:52.75%
Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment
Date
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount
Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce
check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt
by vendors
GP = General Preserve SAU = Mount Umunhum WH = Windy Hill
page 4 of 4
R-20-02
Meeting 20-02
January 22, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Appointment of Board of Directors Standing Committee Members and Representatives to
Various Bodies, Including the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Financing Authority, for Calendar Year 2020
BOARD PRESIDENT’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the Board President’s appointments to the Board Standing Committees and other
bodies, including the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Financing Authority, and determine the compensable status for attendance at these meetings.
SUMMARY
Every year, the newly elected Board President appoints members to each of the Board’s Standing
Committees, the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District)
Financing Authority (“Authority”), and to represent the District on outside bodies, with consent
of the full Board.
DISCUSSION
Standing Committees
The Board Policy on Committees (1.04) states that the Board President appoints Board members to
annual Standing Committees and to represent the District on outside bodies, with the consent of the
Board. According to Board Policy 1.04, appointments to the standing committees are made at the
first regular meeting following the meeting at which officers of the Board are elected. The five
Board Standing Committees are:
1. Action Plan and Budget Committee (ABC)
2. Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC)
3. Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR)
4. Real Property Committee (RPC)
5. Board Appointee Evaluation Committee (BAE)
Following the Board Policy on Committees, Director Kishimoto (Board Treasurer) will be assigned
as one of the three members of ABC. Also, the Board Appointee Evaluation Committee shall
include the Board President (Holman) and Vice-President (Riffle) as two of the three members of the
Committee.
The proposed committee assignments for 2020 are as follows:
R-20-02 Page 2
Action Plan and Budget:
• Yoriko Kishimoto
• Jed Cyr
• Curt Riffle
Board Appointee Evaluation:
• Karen Holman
• Curt Riffle
• Pete Siemens
Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs:
• Jed Cyr
• Larry Hassett
• Zoe Kersteen-Tucker
Planning and Natural Resources:
• Yoriko Kishimoto
• Karen Holman
• Zoe Kersteen-Tucker
Real Property:
• Curt Riffle*
• Larry Hassett
• Zoe Kersteen-Tucker
*Director Riffle recuses himself from participating in potential transactions between POST and
the District due to his employment with POST, which is categorized as a remote interest under
California Government Code section 1091. As such, Board President, Karen Holman, will serve
as a voting alternate member of the Real Property Committee for transactions between POST and
the District, as allowed in Board Policy 1.04.
Financing Authority
The Governing Board of the Authority consists of five members. In accordance with the Joint
Powers Agreement and its bylaws, the District’s Board President (Holman) shall automatically
be the Chairperson of the Authority, and the Board Treasurer (Kishimoto) shall also serve on the
Authority Board. Two of the other four members are appointed by the Board President, to be
selected from among the District’s Board of Directors. The fifth member is the member of the
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors whose district encompasses the greatest territory of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, and who is appointed to the Board of the Financing
Authority by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Simitian continues to serve
on the Authority Board as appointed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority
• Karen Holman
• Yoriko Kishimoto
• Larry Hassett
• Pete Siemens
R-20-02 Page 3
Outside Bodies
Board members also represent the District on various external bodies. The assignments for
external bodies are as follows:
• Santa Clara County Special District’s Association – Pete Siemens
• San Mateo County Special District’s Association – Zoe Kersteen-Tucker
• Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Commission – Jed Cyr
• Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission Independent Special District
Representative Alternate – Yoriko Kishimoto
• California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Delegate – Karen Holman
Applicable Board Policies
Board Policy 6.06 (Meeting Compensation, Reimbursement of Authorized Necessary Expenses for
Performance of Official Duties, and Adoption of Ethics Training Requirements Pursuant to
Government Code Section 53232 et seq. (AB1234)) of the Board Policy Manual states that all
Standing Committees are compensable and compensability for attendance of Ad Hoc Committee
meetings is determined on an as-needed basis by the Board. It is recommended that Board members
be compensated for attendance at all Board Committee and Authority meetings, including Ad Hoc
Committees. It is further recommended that Board member attendance at meetings where the Board
member is the District’s appointed representative also be compensated.
In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5536 and Board Policy 6.06, each
District Board member may receive compensation in an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars
($100) per day for each attendance at a Board meeting (Government Code section 5536). At the
January 8, 2020 Board meeting, the Board approved Resolution 20-01, which authorized
compensating Board members for a maximum of six per month. Accordingly, with seven Board
members, the maximum the entire Board can receive is $50,400 per year. The District’s current
proposed budget for Board meeting compensation is $38,000 for fiscal year 2020-21. If it is later
determined that additional funds are required, a budget adjustment may be requested. pursuant to
new law.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no new or incremental fiscal impact associated with this specific action. Board
compensation for committee work is included in the annual budget.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item is annually brought to the full Board for review and approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice was provided pursuant to the requirements of the Brown Act. No further notice is
required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and no environmental review is required.
R-20-02 Page 4
NEXT STEPS
If approved, staff will prepare a new roster of Board Committee assignments for posting
internally and on the District website.
Responsible Department Manager:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Prepared by:
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager
Contact person:
Karen Holman, Board President
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-10
Meeting 20-02
January 22, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Adopt an Addendum to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan as an amendment to
the Russian Ridge Use and Management Plan that adds the south pasture as part of the
conservation grazing area on the property, and approve an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt a Resolution approving an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Russian Ridge Use and Management Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, to add the south pasture as part of the conservation grazing area on the property.
2. Approve Addendum #1 to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Plan to guide management in the
south pasture expansion area.
3. Amend the Russian Ridge Use and Management Plan for the south pasture expansion to
reflect the approval of Addendum #1 to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Plan.
SUMMARY
Supporting the District’s Coastside mission to protect and restore the natural environment and
encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, the General Manager recommends adoption
of Addendum #1 to the Mindego Hill Ranch (Mindego) Grazing Management Plan (Grazing
Plan) (Attachment 1) and a corresponding amendment to the Russian Ridge Use and
Management Plan (U&M Plan) to expand conservation grazing within Russian Ridge Open
Space Preserve (Russian Ridge). The addendum identifies existing resources and current uses in
the proposed south pasture expansion area, and provides recommendations for future
improvements, management, and monitoring. The recommendations include: installation of
additional water infrastructure, improvements to fencing, vegetation management, and
monitoring of resource management activities. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(District) staff and the current conservation grazing tenant have been working with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to secure cost-sharing support for the anticipated
improvements. Implementation of the recommended infrastructure improvements is estimated to
cost $119,341, of which approximately $85,000 is projected to be the District’s share with the
remainder funded by the NRCS. Work on the improvements is anticipated to begin in July 2020.
The District’s share would be requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process for
FY 2020-21. District costs for infrastructure improvements are eligible for Measure AA
reimbursement.
R-20-10 Page 2
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
rural character. When the District’s boundaries expanded in 2004, a commitment was made to the
Coastside community to preserve agricultural land and rural character, and encourage viable
agricultural use of the land as part the District’s unique mission in the San Mateo Coastside Protection
Area:
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 natural 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 environmental restoration and
ecologically-sensitive public recreation in 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 core focus of
using livestock to pursue conservation goals, such as native species habitat enhancement. The
grazing plan sets the management parameters to meet those goals (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.
Mindego Hill Ranch is in the Coastside Protection Area, and the rangeland expansion area, while
outside the boundary, supports the viability of conservation grazing and is critical for grassland
management, fuel reduction, and habitat enhancement.
DISCUSSION
The District has used conservation grazing as a management tool to protect sensitive species
habitat and reduce fuel loads at Mindego within Russian Ridge since 2015 (R-15-114). This
management is consistent with the Russian Ridge U&M Plan for the Mindego Ranch area
adopted by the Board of Directors (Board) in 2014 (R-14-21). Conservation grazing also helps
fulfill the District’s commitments to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to protect and enhance sensitive species habitat.
Mindego Ranch supports one of only six populations of endangered San Francisco garter snake
(SFGS) as well as a population of their preferred prey species, California red-legged frog
(CRLF). Expansion of the conservation grazing area supports the management and recovery of
R-20-10 Page 3
this population of SFGS and is consistent with the recovery plan for this species. Additionally,
expansion of the conservation grazing area also supports the District’s commitment to the San
Mateo County Coast community to protect and restore the natural environment and encourage
viable agricultural use of land resources. Grazing practices at Mindego Hill are guided by the
Mindego Grazing Plan (Attachment 6). When the District commenced conservation grazing of
the original 1,047-acre property, staff identified an additional 125 acres to the southeast as a
future priority for expanding conservation grazing in the preserve to protect and enhance
sensitive species habitat and reduce fuel loads.
The NRCS is a federal agency under the US Department of Agriculture that provides farmers
and ranchers with financial and technical assistance to encourage conservation practices as part
of day-to-day agricultural activities. The NRCS manages the following natural resources
conservation programs that assist agricultural producers with reducing soil erosion, enhancing
water supplies, improving water quality, increasing wildlife habitat, and reducing damage caused
by floods and other natural disasters:
• Agricultural Management Assistance - Construct or improve water management or
irrigation structures.
• Conservation Stewardship Program - Improve resource conditions, such as soil quality,
water quality, water quantity, air quality, habitat quality, and energy.
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQUIP) - Implement conservation practices,
or activities, such as conservation planning, that address natural resource concerns on
agricultural lands.
The District’s tenant at Mindego Ranch has worked with the local NRCS Conservationist to
identify infrastructure improvements (consistent with the addendum) that qualify for funding
assistance through these programs, reducing District costs in implementing the infrastructure to
support the proposed pasture expansion.
The proposed 125-acre south pasture expansion area within Russian Ridge is situated adjacent to
and south of the Mindego Hill Trail, and east of Mindego Hill (Attachment 2). The proposed
pasture expansion site is bordered by Russian Ridge on the north, east and west, and by private
property to the south. Access to the site is via an all-weather gravel road off Alpine Road that
runs east to west for approximately 0.5 miles.
The proposed pasture expansion area is south sloping, comprised primarily of annual grasslands
with scattered dense stands of coyote brush and some oak trees. The pasture drains into a small
tributary that flows into Alpine Creek, within the San Gregorio Creek Watershed. Livestock
access to the stream channels would be restricted by natural buffers (steep terrain and dense
vegetation) as well as partial wildlife-friendly fencing, as needed. This portion of Alpine Creek
drains into Mindego Creek, downstream from the Cuesta La Honda Guild’s point of diversion
for their water supply.
District staff have begun efforts to manage priority invasive species at this site under the
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program. Similar nearby sites (e.g. Mindego Hill) have
shown positive impacts in vegetative diversity, increased native grasses and wildflowers, and
reduction of invasive vegetation from IPM practices that include the use of conservation grazing
as a grassland management tool. Additionally, reducing fine fuels in this area through active
grazing would decrease the risk of wildland fires.
R-20-10 Page 4
Amendment to the Russian Ridge Use and Management Plan
The attached Mindego Grazing Plan addendum is an amendment to the Russian Ridge U&M
Plan and provides a framework to guide ongoing resource management work based on the
specific conditions and resources within the proposed pasture expansion area. With an emphasis
on protecting both the unique biological resources and agricultural heritage of the site, the
addendum aligns with the District’s coastside mission and Conservation Grazing Management
Policy. To maximize the ecological benefits of conservation grazing in the expansion area, the
addendum recommends infrastructure improvements, resource management projects, stocking
rates, and a monitoring protocol for expanding the effectiveness of the conservation grazing
program on the property and its beneficial effects on grassland habitats. The components of the
Mindego Grazing Plan addendum, which are an addition to the existing U&M Plan, are
discussed in more detail below.
Proposed Infrastructure Improvements
The addendum recommends several infrastructure improvements to optimize effective use of
conservation grazing as a rangeland management tool. The use of grazing animals requires
fencing and water sources for controlling the distribution of livestock to manage and protect the
natural resources. Refer to Attachment 3, Mindego Hill Proposed Grazing Infrastructure Map,
for detailed locations of the proposed improvements, which include the following:
• Fencing: Approximately 5,000 linear feet of new fencing is proposed along the eastern
and southern pasture boundary. Fencing would be installed parallel to the Mindego Hill
Trail to the east and along the border of the former Silva Property to the south. The fence
would be wildlife friendly, per District standards. Short sections of fence may be required
along the western boundary of the pasture to reinforce the natural barrier of dense
vegetation and steep terrain, which will act to contain livestock. Fencing for this project
is estimated to cost approximately $60,000 and is not eligible for NRCS cost sharing.
• Water: 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 reduce impacts on natural waterways. No
natural water sources are present within the pasture expansion area to support grazing
livestock. However, a clean and reliable water source has been developed on Mindego
that uses a natural spring with a solar powered pump to supply water to a storage tank
and water troughs in pastures adjacent to the proposed expansion area (R-14-021). This
existing water system can be modified to supply water to the expansion area.
Staff recommends installation of three new wildlife-friendly concrete water troughs to
supply water to livestock and promote livestock distribution. Two of the new troughs
would be located within the pasture at sites that are minimally visible from the Mindego
Hill Trail to reduce aesthetic impacts. Staff would install the third trough in the holding
field/corral area above the pasture. A new 5,000-gallon low-profile tank (partially buried
in the ground) would be installed in the corral area to supply the water troughs in the
pasture expansion area. Installation of approximately 5,000 feet of pipe would be
required to supply water to the new troughs and tank. The total cost of these water
improvements is anticipated to be approximately $59,500. The water improvements
would be eligible for approximately $34,500 in NRCS cost sharing funds through the
EQUIP program. The District would reimburse the tenant the remaining $25,000 to
complete this work.
R-20-10 Page 5
Estimated Carrying Capacity
Proposed carrying capacity estimates for the south pasture expansion area would be referenced
as a starting point and be adjusted upward or downward as necessary throughout the grazing
season based on numerous factors, including rainfall and forage. Carrying capacity estimates for
the site include:
• Favorable Production Year
175.6 AUMs = Approximately 15 cows year-round or 30 cows for 6 months
• Average Production Year
145.2 AUMs = Approximately 12 cows year-round or 24 cows for 6 months
• Unfavorable Production Year
111.6 AUMs = Approximately 9 cows year-round or 18 cows for 6 months
Monitoring
The monitoring plan for the grazed rangeland pastures on the Mindego portion of Russian Ridge
is designed to ensure that the specific rangeland uses are compliant with the Mindego Grazing
Plan and land stewardship goals and objectives. The addendum recommends using the protocols
identified and used for the Mindego Grazing Plan to monitor the pasture expansion area. In
addition, six new photo point locations have been strategically selected to monitor overall
rangeland health, grazing infrastructure, and invasive vegetation.
Farm Bureau
Staff reviewed the addendum with the executive committee of the Farm Bureau on September
25, 2019. The committee members were generally supportive of the addendum and
recommended the addition of farm labor housing (e.g. trailer) to provide day-to-day monitoring
of the site. However, the tenant has not requested and does not require workforce housing to
manage the property. Consequently, farm labor housing is not included in the addendum.
FISCAL IMPACT
The addendum specifies several recommended infrastructure improvements related to fencing
and water infrastructure. Implementation of these improvements is estimated to cost
approximately $119,500 and would take place in Fiscal Year 2020-21. The NRCS has estimated
that the tenant would likely be eligible for approximately $34,500 in cost-share payments for
implementing the qualifying recommended infrastructure improvements. The District would
reimburse the tenant for remaining costs (approximately $85,000). Work is anticipated to begin
in July 2020. If approved, sufficient funds for the improvements will be requested as part of the
annual Budget and Action Plan process.
Infrastructure improvements are Measure AA eligible. The following table outlines the Measure
AA Portfolio #09 Russian Ridge: Public Recreation, Grazing, and Wildlife Protection Projects
budget, costs-to-date, and the approximate fiscal impact.
R-20-10 Page 6
MAA09 Russian Ridge: Public Recreation, Grazing, and Wildlife Protection
Projects Portfolio Allocation: $5,560,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 12/12/2019): ($374,166)
Encumbrances: ($365,248)
Approximate District cost of recommended improvements: ($85,000)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $4,735,586
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
On October 22, 2019, the Planning and Natural Resources Committee reviewed the proposed
addendum to the Mindego Grazing Plan and associated amendment to the U&M Plan and
recommended approval to the full Board.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public Notice was sent to the
interested parties lists for coastal land purchases, grazing, Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve
and Mindego area of Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve and posted on the District’s webpage.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The Project was evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (IS/MND),
adopted by the Board on January 22, 2014 (R-14-21), available at:
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2013.11.25.MindegoRanchISMND.pdf.
An Addendum to the IS/MND (Attachment 4) was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of
range expansion. Pursuant to section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the differences between
the approved Project described in the 2014 IS/MND and the modification of the Project as
currently proposed and described in the Addendum are minor, and the Addendum provides
sufficient environmental documentation of the changes to the Project. The Addendum finds that
these minor additions to the Project do not alter any of the conclusions of the 2014 IS/MND. No
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects would result. The resolution to adopt the addendum to the IS/MND is included
here as Attachment 5.
NEXT STEPS
If the Board approves the General Manager’s recommendations, staff will file a Notice of
Determination with the San Mateo County Clerk. Staff will work with the conservation grazing
tenant and local NRCS office to secure supporting funds and implement the recommended
infrastructure improvements and conservation grazing management.
Attachments
1. Addendum #1 to Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan
2. Mindego Ranch, Proposed South Pasture Expansion Map
3. Proposed Improvements to Infrastructure Map
R-20-10 Page 7
4. Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Russian Ridge Use and
Management Plan
5. Resolution Adopting the Addendum to the IS/MND
6. Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resource Department
Prepared by:
Lewis Reed, Rangeland Ecologist/Botanist
Graphics prepared by:
Francisco Lopez, GIS Technician
PO Box 227, Sunol, CA 94586 (925) 819-0413 Koopmann.Consulting@gmail.com
ADDENDUM No. 1:
Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan
March 2019
PREPARED FOR:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Attn: Lewis Reed, Rangeland Ecologist
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
ORIGINAL PLAN PREPARED BY:
SAGE Associates
May 2008
ADDENDUM PREPARED BY:
Koopmann Rangeland Consulting
Clayton Koopmann – CA Certified Rangeland
Manager #M-100
ATTACHMENT 1
1 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
CONTENT S
I. A ddendum Overview and Purpose
Amendment Overview and Purpose .................................................................... Page 2
II. Property Background and Description
Location ...................................................................................................................... Page 2
Site Description .......................................................................................................... Page 3
Historic & Current Land Use ..................................................................................... Page 3
III. Cultural and Ecological Resources
Ecological Resources & Special Status Species .................................................. Page 3
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... Page 4
Vegetative Descriptions ............................................................................................ Page 4
IV. Grazing Management Prescriptions & Recommendations
Estimated Carrying Capacity ................................................................................. Page 5
Season of Use ............................................................................................................... Page 5
Prescribed Forage Standards ................................................................................... Page 6
V. Grazing Infrastructure Improvements
Fencing ........................................................................................................................ Page 6
Stock Water ................................................................................................................ Page 7
Corrals ............................................................................................................................ Page 8
VI. Best Management Practices
Water Quality Protection ......................................................................................... Page 8
Special Status Species ................................................................................................ Page 9
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... Page 9
Invasive Vegetation Management ......................................................................... Page 9
VII. Monitoring Recommendations
Rangeland Monitoring ........................................................................................... Page 11
References
Plan Certification
ATTACHMENT 1
2 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
I. OVERVIEW & PURPOSE
This document serves as an addendum to the original Mindego Hill Grazing Management Plan,
prepared in May 2008 by SAGE Associates, for the 1,047 acre Mindego Hill Ranch (Mindego Hill).
This addendum is prepared by Koopmann Rangeland Consulting at the request of Coty Sifuentes-
Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District (District). Mindego Hill was acquired by the District in 2008.
Mindego Hill was historically grazed by the former owners, the True Family. Upon acquisition of
Mindego Hill, the District installed a variety of grazing infrastructure improvements including
fencing, gates, corral, and an extensive livestock water system prior to entering into a long-term
grazing lease in 2015. Cattle grazing on Mindego Hill is carefully managed to reduce wildfire fuel
loads, conserve and enhance habitat for special status wildlife species, and foster the rich
agricultural heritage in San Mateo County. Mindego Hill is bordered on two sides by the Russian
Ridge Open Space Preserve, also owned and managed by the District. A grassland portion of
Russian Ridge, adjacent to Mindego Hill, is identified by Natural Resources Department (NRD)
staff as a site that may benefit ecologically from the introduction of livestock grazing while
reducing wildfire fuel loads adjacent to a highly used access road/trail. The site includes
approximately 125 grazeable acres described in subsequent sections of this document.
This addendum serves to add the 125 acre Russian Ridge site as a pasture expansion to the
original Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan prepared in 2008 by SAGE Associates.
Rangeland management and grazing prescriptions, management strategies, and best
management practices (BMPs) recommended in the Sage RMP should also be applied to the
pasture expansion area. This addendum recommends additional management prescription s
specific to the pasture expansion area to meet the District’s objectives for the site.
II. PROPERTY BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Russian Ridge) is located in rural San Mateo County,
bordered by Skyline Boulevard on the east and Alpine Road to the south (Figure-1). The 125±
acre site within Russian Ridge is situated adjacent to and west of the Mindego Hill Trail south of
the Mindego Hill property (Figure-2). The pasture expansion site is bordered by Mindego Hill to
the north, Russian Ridge to the south and east, and by private property to the west. Access to
the site is via an all-weather gravel road that runs south to north for approximately 0.5 miles,
originating on the north side of Alpine Road.
ATTACHMENT 1
3 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
SITE DESCRIPTION:
The proposed pasture encompasses approximately 125± grazeable acres of the Russian Ridge
Open Space Preserve located on the west-southwest side of the Mindego Hill Trail (former True
Driveway). The pasture area is west sloping, comprised primarily of annual grasslands with dense
stands of coyote brush and some oak trees around the bottom of the pasture. The entire pasture
drains into a small tributary to Alpine Creek, part of the San Gregorio Creek Watershed. Cattle
will not have access to the stream channel and a natural vegetative buffer of at least 375 feet
exists between the grazed pasture and Alpine Creek. Livestock access to the stream channels will
be controlled by natural buffers (steep terrain and dense vegetation) as well as partial fencing as
needed. This portion of Alpine Creek drains into Mindego Creek with the confluence of the two
streams located downstream from the Cuesta La Honda Guild point of diversion (POD).
Annual grasslands comprise the majority of the pasture area, dominated by non-native grasses
and low growing forbs that are palatable, desirable forage for livestock. Some ridgetop grassland
areas of the proposed pasture have been impacted by coyote brush encroachment. Well-
established coyote brush and hardwood forest dominate many of the steeper drainages. Large
infestations of invasive vegetation are well established in the area and include yellow starthistle,
milk thistle, bull thistle, and poison hemlock, most of which can be controlled or reduced through
livestock grazing. Similar sites nearby have shown a positive impact from livestock grazing in
terms of vegetative diversity, increased native grasses and wildflowers, and reduction of invasive
vegetation. Additionally, reducing fine fuels in this area will minimize the ri sk of catastrophic
wildfire, which poses a risk to nearby residences.
HISTORIC & CURRENT LAND USE:
The site was historically grazed by cattle but has not been grazed for several decades, beginning
when the District took ownership of the property in 1978. For the past several decades, the site
has been a part of the Russian Ridge, used for low impact public recreation. The site, while
included in Russian Ridge, received little recreational use due its remote location, steep terrain,
and difficult access.
Recent construction and opening of the Mindego Hill Trail has increased traffic and public use in
the area, but access is restricted to the trail/access road on the ridge top. Currently, the site
remains relatively undisturbed with the exception of biological monitoring, coyote brush removal
efforts, implementation on invasive species treatment, and the livestock corral located adjacent
to the Mindego Hill Trail/driveway, which serves the current grazing operation on the Mindego
Hill property.
ATTACHMENT 1
4 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
III. CULTURAL AND ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES & SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES:
A biological assessment of the Mindego Hill pasture expansion area was conducted by the
District’s Natural Resource Department staff in 2017. The pasture expansion area boasted a
diverse vegetative composition with a variety of grasses and forbs observed. Large stands of
invasive thistle, coyote brush, and dense layers of thatch were noted throughout much of the
site, which may have impaired the growth of additional species and/or may have limited
observations by staff. No special status vegetative species were observed during the assessment.
San Francisco garter snake (SFGS), California red-legged frogs (CRLF), and Western pond turtles
(WPT) have been documented on the adjacent Mindego Hill property. A reported observation of
a San Francisco garter snake was documented in the pasture expansion area in 2009 [1] along the
Mindego Hill Trail. The potential for CRLF and WPT to exist in the pasture expansion area is rare
due to the absence of aquatic features other than a few seasonal drainages and seeps. The
pasture expansion area is considered potential upland habitat for SFGS that are known to occupy
Mindego Lake and Upper Springs approximately 0.25 miles to the north [1]. Other species of
interest that have been documented in the pasture expansion area include mountain lions,
bobcats, and American badgers. Feral pigs have been observed on the site and often cause
ecological impacts to water sources and desirable vegetation by rooting up the soil.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area historically occupied the region,
including the Russian Ridge area in San Mateo County. Native Americans are thought to have
used the area for gathering seeds and may have burned some of the grasslands to encourage a
bountiful crop in the following years [2]. Remnant artifacts from the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe can
be found throughout the region including decorative shells, milling slabs, hand stones, awls,
mortars, and pestles. No cultural resources were identified within the pasture expansion area
during a biological and cultural resource assessment conducted by District staff in 2017. Sensitive
cultural resources are known to occur at sites near the pasture expansion area, so there is a
potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources on site.
VEGETATIVE COMPOSITION:
A combination of annual grassland and coastal scrub habitat covers approximately 70-75 percent
of the pasture expansion area, 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. Dense woody vegetation including oaks, bay laurels, redwoods,
and coyote brush dominate the steep drainages and act as a natural barrier to livestock along the
ATTACHMENT 1
5 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
steep western edge of the site. Non-native invasive vegetation is found throughout the pasture
expansion area. Yellow starthistle is found throughout the site with many localized dense stands.
Italian thistle, milk thistle, and bull thistle were also identified. Coyote brush encroachment has
drastically impacted grasslands throughout the pasture expansion area. Purple starthistle and
wooly distaff thistle are found on the adjacent Mindego Hill pastures but were not observed in
the pasture expansion area, except for a few purple starthistle plants on the Mindego Hill
Trail/driveway [3].
IV. GRAZING MANAGEMENT PERSCIPTIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed pasture expansion area within Russian Ridge is primarily annual grasslands. The
reintroduction of cattle grazing to the site has the potential to enhance wildlife habitat, reduce
non-native invasive plant species, promote increased plant species diversity, and reduce wildfire
fuel loads. The following grazing management prescriptions are recommended to achieve the
District’s management objectives for the site.
ESTIMATED CARRYING CAPACITY:
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 pr escribed 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. Proposed
carrying capacity estimates for the Pasture Expansion Area should be referenced as a starting
point and be adjusted upward or downward as necessary throughout the grazing season.
Carrying capacity estimates for the site include:
Favorable Production Year:
175.6 AUMs = Approximately 15 cows year-round or 30 cows for 6 months.
Average Production Year:
145.2 AUMs = Approximately 12 cows year-round or 24 cows for 6 months.
Unfavorable Production Year:
111.6 AUMs = Approximately 9 cows year-round or 18 cows for 6 months.
SEASON OF USE:
ATTACHMENT 1
6 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
A light to moderate year-round grazing regime is best suited for the site, which will be
incorporated into the current 2-pasture grazing rotation in place on Mindego Hill. The result will
be a 3-pasture grazing rotation with the addition of the Pasture Expansion Area which will allow
greater flexibility in managing livestock grazing to achieve multiple objectives including fire fuel
load reduction, wildlife habitat enhancement, promoting native grasses and forbs, and control of
invasive vegetation.
The Pasture Expansion Area would benefit from winter and early spring grazing which will reduce
non-native annuals allowing native forbs and wildflowers to bloom. In addition, winter and early
spring grazing will reduce cattle impacts to recreational trails on Mindego Hill during winter
months as cattle are confined to the new expansion pasture. A second grazing rotation, during
the early summer, will reduce remaining fine fuels for fire protection and assist in control of some
invasive thistles, which typically bolt and flower later than the annual grasses and wildflowers.
PRESCRIBED FORAGE STANDARD:
Leaving prescribed levels of residual dry matter (RDM) on th e 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, the grazed site should not exceed 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 [4].
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
[4].
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 to reduce vegetative biomass plays an important role in reducing wildfire fuel loads and
promoting ecological benefit on coastal rangelands. While it is ideal to graze pastures to at or
near prescribed RDM levels, it may be difficult to obtain these results annually based on natur al
climatic factors. Grazing operators should manage grazing livestock to remove, at a minimum,
forty percent of the annual forage produced. For example, if annual forage production in a
pasture is 5,000 pounds per acre, the grazing operator should manag e livestock to reduce, at a
ATTACHMENT 1
7 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
minimum, 2,000 pounds of forage per acre resulting in Fall RDM measurements around 3,000
pounds per acre.
While a forty percent reduction in forage is not ideal, it will provide some benefit in terms of fine
fuels reduction and ecological benefit. If pastures or areas within pastures continually fail to
meet the prescribed RDM standard, consider options to achieve RDM objectives such as;
increased stocking rate, adjusting season of use/timing, adding a water source in the area, and/or
placing cattle supplement in the area as an attractant.
V. GRAZING INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
FENCING:
Containment of grazing livestock to designated pastures plays an important role in the success
of grazing to achieve resource management objectives, protect water quality, and provide a safe,
user friendly recreational experience. New fence will be required along the eastern and southern
borders of the pasture expansion area. An existing fence between the pasture expansion area
and Mindego Hill property is in place along the northern boundary. Natural barriers (dense
vegetation and steep terrain) will act as a livestock barrier along the western border of the
pasture expansion area. Grazing tenant should monitor the efficacy of the natural barrier and
install additional fencing as needed to ensure livestock remain in the pasture area. The District
can require installation of additional fencing, as needed, to ensure cattle remain within the
designated pasture area.
Approximately 5,000 linear feet of new fencing will be required along the eastern and southern
pasture boundary. Fencing will be installed parallel to the Mindego Hill Trail to the east and along
the border of the Silva Property to the south. The fence should consist of five (5) wires, four (4)
strands of barbed wire on top with a smooth bottom wire approximately 16” above the ground.
Fence braces should consist of welded oilfield pipe with heavy duty 1.33 PPF t-posts installed on
ten (10) or twelve (12) foot centers. This style of fence is a wildlife friendly design that has been
used extensively on the Mindego Hill property as well as other District preserves. The fence line
parallel to the Mindego Hill Trail should be installed 10-12 feet below the trail to allow
maintenance staff to mow and perform road maintenance as necessary without compromising
the fence. Additionally, the fence will be installed below the road to reduce aesthetic impacts to
Preserve visitors. Short sections of fence may be required along the western boundary of the
pasture to reinforce the natural barrier (dense vegetation and steep terrain) that will act to
contain livestock. Reference Figure-3, Mindego Hill Proposed Grazing Infrastructure Map, for
detailed location of proposed fencing.
ATTACHMENT 1
8 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
STOCK WATER:
Developed stock water is an essential component to a well managed livestock grazing program.
Water sources can be used as an attractant to encourage cattle to graze desired areas within a
pasture and enhance livestock distribution to better utilize available forage and graze grasslands
more evenly. No natural water sources are present within the pasture expansion area to support
grazing livestock.
A reliable water source is developed on the Mindego Hill property, a natural spring with a solar
powered pump, which supplies water to a storage tank and water troughs in pastures adjacent
to the pasture expansion area. This existing water system can be modified to supply a reliable,
quality water source to the pasture expansion area.
Installation of three (3) new wildlife friendly concrete water troughs is recommended to supply
water to livestock and promote livestock grazing distribution. Two of the new troughs will be
located within the pasture at sites that are minimally visible from the Mindego Hill T rail to reduce
aesthetic impacts. The third trough will be installed in the holding field/corral area above the
pasture. A new 5,000-gallon water storage tank will be installed in the corral area to supply the
water troughs in the pasture expansion area. A low-profile tank partially buried in the ground is
recommended to minimize aesthetic impacts in the Preserve. Installation of approximately 5,000
feet of pipe is will be required to supply water to new troughs and tank. Pipe should be trenched
or plowed into the ground at a depth of 18 to 24 inches. Reference Figure-3, Mindego Hill
Proposed Grazing Infrastructure Map, for detailed location of proposed troughs, tank, and
pipeline. All water troughs should be equipped with a wildlife escape ramp.
CORRAL:
The livestock corral that serves the Mindego Hill property is currently located within the pasture
expansion area on the east side of the Mindego Hill Trail. The existing corral will adequately serve
grazing operations in the pasture expansion area.
VI. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
WATER QUALITY PROTECTION:
Runoff from the pasture expansion area drains entirely into a small tributary to Alpine Creek, part
of the San Gregorio Creek Watershed. This portion of Alpine Creek drains into Mindego Creek
with the confluence of the two streams located downstream from the Cuesta La Honda Guild
point of diversion (POD). Protecting water quality in the watershed is of high importance to the
District to ensure the safety of downstream water users and protect aquatic habitat for wildlife.
ATTACHMENT 1
9 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
The following BMPs should be implemented to help reduce the risk of animal waste
contaminating water sources within and downstream of the pasture expansion area:
Maintain a natural vegetative buffer of no less t han thirty (30) feet from the top of the bank
of perennial tributaries to Alpine Creek. The vegetative buffer will act as a natural filter to
trap potential pathogens before they reach the water body. There is currently a 375 foot
vegetative buffer planned between the grazed pasture area and tributary drainage.
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. The corral is situated on a ridgetop nearly a half-mile from the tributary drainage to
Alpine Creek.
Fly and vector control in livestock facilities may also reduce the spread and subsequent
infection of other animals with pathogenic bacteria.
Provide off-stream livestock water sources such as water troughs to reduce the use of
streams by cattle and other livestock for water.
Leave prescribed levels of residual dry matter (RDM) on the ground surface to minimize the
risk for soil erosion and sedimentation to protect water quality. Ensure that grassland
vegetation remains at levels equal to or greater than minimum prescribed RDM standards.
Implement a comprehensive livestock husbandry program, including appropriate and timely
inoculations and de-worming to minimize the risk of contracting or spreading disease to other
livestock, humans, and wildlife. The Mindego Hill pasture expansion area presents an
extremely low risk of impacts to water quality. No restrictions on season of use are
recommended.
Trap and remove feral pigs when feasible. Rooting from feral pigs disturbs soil which can lead
to erosion and sedimentation of downstream waterways. Additionally, feral pigs can carry
disease and pathogens such as cryptosporidium which may contaminate water sources.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES:
SFGS have been documented within the pasture expansion area, which provides potential upland
habitat for snakes occupying the Upper Springs and Mindego Lake sites on the Mindego Hill
property. The dense thatch accumulation in the pasture expansion area provides poor habitat
for SFGS who prefer a mosaic of grassland vegetation of varying height.
Utilize grazing livestock to manage surrounding upland habitats for a mosaic of microhabitats
(some open grassland, some brush, some downed woody debris areas, etc.) in the pasture
expansion area. Creating a mosaic of microhabitats and breaking up the dense layer of thatch
in the grasslands can be beneficial for successful management of SFGS habitat [5].
ATTACHMENT 1
10 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
All proposed activities must adhere to applicable permit conditions for avoidance and
minimization of impacts to SFGS. A preconstruction training, biological pre-surveys and/or the
presence of a biological monitor may be required during construction and maintenance of grazing
infrastructure as well as mechanical vegetation management efforts (e.g. mowing or weed
whipping) to avoid impacts to SFGS
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
While cultural resources were not observed in the pasture expansion area, cultural resources are
known from nearby areas. Given sensitivity, continue to monitor the pasture expansion area for
the presence of cultural artifacts, particularly during construction of grazing infrastructure. If
inadvertent cultural resources are detected, report to District staff and avoid future work in and
around the area of the cultural resources until the site is inspected by a Senior Resource
Management Specialist or a professional archaeologist.
INVASIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT:
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. Manage the site 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 Integrated Pest Management Program (IPMP) and all invasive species treatment
must adhere to the District’s BMPs and mitigation measures as 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,
vegetated 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, yellow starthistle, and wooly distaff thistle, particularly when
treating large infestations that are not easily controlled through manual methods. Follow-up
inspection and manual removal during the summer 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
11 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
Manually remove wooly distaff and purple starthistle 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.
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. Soil can be contaminated with invasive species and
pathogens such as phytophthora. Soil importation is not consistent with District policy.
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.
Implement an integrated approach described above to identifying and treating invasive plants
within the pasture expansion area 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 purple starthistle. Work with the District, UCCE and/or local NRCS or RCD to
determine best options and timing for specific treatments.
ATTACHMENT 1
12 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
VII. MONITORING
The monitoring program for the grazed rangeland pastures on the Mindego Hill portion of
Russian Ridge is designed to ensure that the specific rangeland uses are in compliance with the
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan and the land stewardship goals and objectives. Utilize
the monitoring protocols recommended in the Mindego Hill Grazing Management Plan (Sage,
2008) to monitor the pasture expansion area. Six (6) photo poin t locations within the pasture
expansion area were strategically selected to capture overall rangeland health, grazing
infrastructure, and invasive vegetation. These six photo points should be added to the annual
Mindego Hill rangeland monitoring and data collection, including residual dry matter data.
Figure-4 is a map showing photo point locations within the pasture expansion area and Exhibit-1
shows the stock photo for each of the six selected monitoring points.
ATTACHMENT 1
13 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
Figure-1: Regional Location Map
ATTACHMENT 1
14 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
Figure-2: Mindego Hill Pasture Expansion Area
ATTACHMENT 1
15 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
Figure-3: Proposed Grazing Infrastructure Improvements
ATTACHMENT 1
16 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
Figure-4: Rangeland Monitoring Photo Point Locations
ATTACHMENT 1
17 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
EXHIBIT-1
Rangeland Monitoring Stock Photos
Photo Point 1: Across the road from corral facing south. A landscape photo capturing
vegetative composition including coyote brush encroachment.
Photo Point 2: Ridgetop near east central part of pasture expansion looking west toward
Alpine Creek. Planned location for water trough, brush encroachment, and grasslands.
ATTACHMENT 1
18 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
Photo Point 3: Ridgetop near east central part of pasture expansion looking north toward
corrals and Mindego Hill. Ridgetop grasslands with Mindego Trail in background.
Photo Point 4: Ridgetop near western end of pasture expansion looking north toward Alpine
Creek and Mindego Hill. Grassland habitat with coyote brush encroachment.
ATTACHMENT 1
19 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
Photo Point 5: Ridgetop near western end of pasture expansion looking west toward Alpine
Road. Grassland habitat with coyote brush encroachment and lower reaches of pasture.
Photo Point 6: Ridgetop near western end of pasture expansion looking South toward Alpine
Road and former Silva Property. Grassland habitat with coyote brush encroachment.
ATTACHMENT 1
20 | P a g e
Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan – Amendment 1_ August 2019
R E F E E R E N C E S
1. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION: Andersen, Julie. Senior Resource Management Specialist,
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
2. Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve History. OpenSpace.org/preserves/Russian-Ridge.
Accessed March 2019.
3. PERSONAL OBSERVATION: Koopmann, Clayton. April 2017 site visit.
4. Guidelines for Residual Dry Matter on Coastal and Foothill Rangelands in California.
University of California Cooperative Extensions (UCCE). Publication 8092. 2002.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Mindego Hill Rangeland Management Plan. Sage and Associates. 2008.
8. California Natural Diversity database last accessed online March 2019.
P L A N P R E P A R E D B Y :
Having prepared this Rangeland Management Plan (RMP) addendum, 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, including addenda, should be updated
at least every ten years, or in the event of significant changes in the use, management, or ownership
of the Property.
Clayton W. Koopmann, B.S., Agricultural Management & Rangeland Resources; Owner
Koopmann Rangeland Consulting; California Board of Forestry Registered Certified Rangeland
Manager #M-100
ATTACHMENT 1
!#
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P!P!P
!P
!P!P
!PMindegoRanch
RUSSIAN RIDGE
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
R o d g e r s G u l c h
Mindego C r e e k
R
a
p
l
e
y
C
r
e
e
k
Audrey's
W
a
y
Ancient OaksTrail
Mindego Hill Trail
Ridge Trail
M
eadow Trail
Charquin T r a il B o G
i
m
b
a
l
Tr
a
i
l
Alder Spring
T
r
a
i
l
1
8
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
20
0
0
1400
1200
1000
1200
1000
2
4
0
0
220
0
1400
1200
2000
1
8
0
0
14
0
0
180
0
1800
120
0
1
4
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
0
800
AlpineRoad
ÄÆ35
Mindego
Hill
2,143'
RR02
RR12
RR04
RR13
SR08
SR07
RR03
RR03A
RR01
Mindego Lake
Big Spring
Upper
Springs
Knuedler Lake
Proposed
South Pasture
Expansion
Summer
Pasture
Winter
Pasture
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(MROSD)
August 2019
Mindego Ranch, Proposed South Pasture Expansion
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
R
u
s
s
i
a
n
_
R
i
d
g
e
\
M
i
n
d
e
g
o
H
i
l
l
\
G
r
a
z
i
n
g
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
\
R
R
_
M
i
n
d
e
g
o
G
r
a
z
i
n
g
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
_
P
a
s
t
u
r
e
_
2
0
1
9
0
3
2
1
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
F
L
O
P
E
Z
0 0.50.25
Miles
I
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.
Preserve Boundary
Mindego Ranch
!P Gate
Unpaved Road
Trail
Abandoned / Unamaintained Trail
Abandoned / Unmaintained Road
Active Pasture
Proposed Pasture
ATTACHMENT 2
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!<
!<
!<
!<
!<
!<
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
!P
M i n d e g o C r e e k
Mindego Hill Trail
Charquin Trail
RR12
Proposed South
Pasture Expansion
Summer
Pasture
Winter
Pasture
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(MROSD)
August 2019
Mindego Ranch, Proposed Grazing Infrastructure
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
R
u
s
s
i
a
n
_
R
i
d
g
e
\
M
i
n
d
e
g
o
H
i
l
l
\
G
r
a
z
i
n
g
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
\
R
R
_
M
i
n
d
e
g
o
G
r
a
z
i
n
g
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
_
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
_
2
0
1
9
0
3
2
1
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
F
L
O
P
E
Z
0 500250
FeetI
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.
UT Existing Water Tank
UT Proposed Water Tank
!<Existing Trough
!<Proposed Trough
! ! ! ! !Existing Fence
! ! ! ! !Proposed Fence
Existing Water Line
Proposed Water Line
Active Pasture
Proposed Pasture
Corral
!P Gate
Unpaved Road
Trail
Abandoned / Unmaintained Road
Mindego Ranch
ATTACHMENT 3
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan
SCH# 2013112067
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan
SCH# 2013112067
LEAD AGENCY:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Contact: Gretchen Laustsen, Planner III
Phone: 650.691.1200
Fax: 650.691.0485
January 22, 2020
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum to the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
MROSD i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... II
1 MINDEGO RANCH USE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN OVERVIEW ............................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of thIs Document ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project History ................................................................................................................................. 2
2 CEQA GUIDANCE REGARDING PREPARATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE IS/MND ............................. 4
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................... 5
3.1 ADDENDUM TO THE MINDEGO RANCH GRAZING Management PLAN ....................................... 5
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS ................................... 9
4.1 Aesthetics........................................................................................................................................ 9
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .............................................................................................. 9
4.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 9
4.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................... 10
4.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 10
4.6 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................... 11
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................... 11
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 11
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 12
4.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 12
4.11 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................... 13
4.12 Noise ............................................................................................................................................. 13
4.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................... 13
4.14 PUBLIC Services ........................................................................................................................... 13
4.15 Recreation ..................................................................................................................................... 14
4.16 Transportation .............................................................................................................................. 14
4.17 Utilities & Service Systems .......................................................................................................... 14
5 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Location ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Exhibit 2 Proposed Minor Project Modification Area ................................................................................... 7
Exhibit 3 Proposed Grazing Infrastructure Area ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum to the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
ii MROSD
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2001.1.1
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CDFW California Fish and Wildlife
CRLF California Red-Legged Frog
District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
IS/MND Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
GHG Greenhouse Gas
MROSD Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Russian Ridge or RROSP Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve
SFGS San Francisco Garter Snake
U&M Plan Use and Management Plan
USFWS United State Fish and Wildlife Service
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum to the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
MROSD 1
1 MINDEGO RANCH USE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN OVERVIEW
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
In January 2014, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District, MROSD) Board of Directors
adopted the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (State Clearinghouse No.
2013112067) for the MINDEGO RANCH USE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (herein referred to as the 2014
IS/MND). The 2014 IS/MND analyzed a proposed project that included the adoption of a Use and
Management Plan (U&M Plan) for the 1,047-acre Mindego Ranch Property within the District’s Russian
Ridge Open Space Preserve (RROSP or Russian Ridge). The proposed U&M Plan focuses on habitat
restoration projects to benefit resident populations of California red-legged frog (CRLF) and San Francisco
garter snake (SFGS). Other planned actions include re-introduction of cattle grazing to the property and
associated infrastructure improvements, road and trail maintenance to reduce erosion, and routine patrol
activities. The U & M Plan also includes minimal public access to the property, namely opening access to an
existing donor recognition site to hikers and equestrians.
The following documents were incorporated into the U &M Plan and guide implementation for several
components, including habitat restoration, grazing management, and roadway improvements:
• San Francisco Garter Snake Habitat Management Plan. This habitat management plan was prepared
specifically for the proposed project by Biosearch in September 2012. The management plan
provides a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) compliant strategy to encourage the
recovery of SFGS by improving habitat conditions for SFGS and CRLF, a primary food source for
SFGS. Habitat management actions include temporarily draining Mindego Lake to eradicate non-
native species, and removing sediment and vegetation from other ponds on the property to improve
breeding habitat for CRLF. The habitat enhancement actions were designed to benefit the SFGS and
would be implemented under an endangered species recovery or enhancement permit issued by the
USFWS.
• Road and Trail Erosion Inventory: Mindego Ranch Area. This report, prepared by Timothy C. Best,
CEG, in November 2012, inventories the condition and erosion potential along existing roads and
trails into and within Mindego Ranch, focusing on potential risk for future sediment delivery to
streams, and locations where road or trail upgrades are needed. The report identifies feasible
repairs to minimize erosion and repair damaged roads. The report also includes an assessment of
long-term maintenance requirements.
• Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan (Mindego Grazing Plan). This grazing plan was
prepared specifically for the proposed project by Sage Associates in October 2012. The grazing plan
provides appropriate management practices for a conservation grazing program, including soil and
water conservation, erosion control, pest management, nutrient management, water quality, and
habitat protection associated with the onsite grasslands that are proposed for grazing.
The District proposes modifications to the previously approved project through the approval of an addendum
to the Mindego Grazing Plan that includes expansion of the conservation grazing area, installing additional
grazing infrastructure improvements, and monitoring recommendations. The project purpose identified in
Section 1.0, page 2, of the 2014 IS/MND remain unchanged.
The purpose of this proposed Addendum is to consider whether these modifications to the project would
result in the need for additional analysis under CEQA (Public Resources Code, section 21166; CEQA
Guidelines, sections 15162, 15164). As demonstrated in Section 4 below, the project modifications do not
meet any of the criteria listed in section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (as described in Section 2 below).
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum to the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
2 MROSD
This means the modifications would not (1) result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects due to substantial changes to the project;
(2) result in significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects due to substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken; or (3): affect approved mitigation measures, requiring new mitigation measures or alter their
feasibility or implementation.
Therefore, pursuant to section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the differences between the approved project
described in the 2014 IS/MND and the project modifications as currently proposed are considered minor
technical changes and additions. For these reasons, an addendum to the 2014 IS/MND is the appropriate
mechanism to address modifications to the project.
This document concludes that the proposed approval of the addendum to the Mindego Grazing Plan would
not alter any of the conclusions of the 2014 IS/MND. As mentioned above, none of the conditions listed in
section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines exist for the project modification described herein. Therefore,
pursuant to section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the differences between the approved project described
in the 2014 IS/MND and the modification of the project as currently proposed and described in this
addendum are minor and this addendum provides sufficient environmental documentation.
1.2 PROJECT HISTORY
The project area, a 1,047-acre former cattle ranch, was added to the District’s RROSP in 2008. A Preliminary
Use and Management Plan, which maintained status quo management on the Mindego Ranch property, was
approved as part of the purchase (MROSD 2008). Subsequently, the District conducted biological surveys on
the property, which documented the existence of a population of SFGS, a federally listed endangered
species. Because of the biological sensitivity of this species, which includes federal regulation of activities
within its habitat, the District has engaged in long-term planning to ensure that future District public access
and land management objectives are fully consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
District staff worked closely with resource specialists to develop land management recommendations for
Mindego Ranch, including pond restoration, re-introduction of cattle grazing, and road and trail
improvements to reduce erosion and facilitate adequate maintenance and patrol of the property. These
recommendations were consolidated into the U&M Plan for Mindego Ranch. The U&M Plan was developed
to guide stewardship of the property for the next twenty to thirty years. In January 2014, the MROSD Board
of Directors adopted the Project’s Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (R-14-03).
The District has used conservation grazing as a management tool to protect sensitive species habitat and
reduce fuel loads at Mindego within Russian Ridge since 2015. Conservation grazing also helps fulfill the
District’s commitments to the USFWS, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the San Mateo
County Farm Bureau (Farm Bureau) - to protect and enhance sensitive species habitat and to protect the
local agricultural heritage respectively. Specific grazing practices within areas currently grazed at Mindego
Hill are guided by the U&M Plan, which includes the Mindego Grazing Plan. When the District commenced
grazing of the original 1,047-acre property, staff identified an additional 125 acres to the southeast as a
future priority for expanding conservation grazing on the property.
The proposed grazing plan addendum provides a framework to guide ongoing resource management work
based on the specific conditions and resources within the proposed pasture expansion area. With an
emphasis on protecting both the unique biological resources and agricultural heritage of the site, the grazing
plan addendum aligns with the District’s coastside mission and Grazing Management Policy. To manage the
effects of grazing in the expansion area, the addendum recommends infrastructure improvements, resource
management projects, stocking rates, and a monitoring protocol for expanding the effectiveness of the
conservation grazing program on the property and its beneficial effects on grassland habitats. The
components of the addendum are discussed in more detail in Section 3.
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
MROSD 3
Exhibit 1 Regional Map
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum to the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
4 MROSD
2 CEQA GUIDANCE REGARDING PREPARATION OF
AN ADDENDUM TO THE IS/MND
Section 15162 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that when a negative declaration has been adopted for a
project, no subsequent negative declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that one or more of the
following conditions is met:
(1) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous
negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which
will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with
the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous negative declaration was adopted, shows
any of the following:
(A) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative
declaration;
(B) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous
negative declaration;
(C) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and
would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or
(D) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the
previous negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an
addendum to a previously adopted IS/MND if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the
conditions described above in section 15162(a), calling for preparation of a subsequent negative
declaration, have occurred.
CEQA allows lead and subsequent responsible agencies issuing additional discretionary approvals for a
project to restrict their review of modifications to a previously approved project to the incremental effects
associated with the proposed modifications, compared against the anticipated effects of the previously
approved project at build-out. In other words, if the project under review constitutes a modification of a
previously approved project which was subject to prior final environmental review, the “baseline” for
purposes of CEQA is adjusted such that the originally approved project is assumed to exist.
The District is proposing only minor modifications to the approved project; these changes are described in
Section 3 of this addendum. As demonstrated in detail below, the project modifications do not meet any of
the criteria listed in section 15162 that would require a subsequent IS/MND. First, the modifications would
not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously
evaluated significant effects that result from either a substantial change to the project or changes to the
project circumstances. Second, there is no new information of substantial importance since certification of
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
MROSD 5
the 2014 IS/MND that shows the modifications will have new significant effects or more severe previously
evaluated effects. Finally, no mitigation measures in the 2014 IS/MND will be altered, and no new mitigation
measures will be required. Therefore, pursuant to section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the differences
between the approved project described in the 2014 IS/MND and the refined elements of the project, as
they are currently proposed, are minor technical changes. Furthermore, the 2014 IS/MND and associated
mitigation monitoring and reporting program remain valid for mitigating the identified potentially significant
impacts that would result from implementation of the project, including the proposed modifications. For
these reasons, an addendum to the 2014 IS/MND is the appropriate mechanism to address modifications
to the project.
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
The District’s proposed modifications to the previously approved project include an addendum to the
Mindego Ranch Grazing Management Plan.
The purpose of this proposed Addendum is to consider whether these modifications to the project would
result in the need for additional analysis under CEQA (Public Resources Code, section 21166; CEQA
Guidelines, sections 15162, 15164). The following provides a description of each proposed modification to
the previously approved project.
3.1 ADDENDUM TO THE MINDEGO RANCH GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN
The proposed addendum to the Mindego Ranch Grazing Plan identifies existing resources and current uses
in the proposed south pasture expansion area, and provides recommendations for future improvements,
management, and monitoring. Recommendations include an expansion of pasture area, corresponding
stocking rates for the expanded pasture, infrastructure improvements, resource management projects, and
a monitoring protocol to measure the effectiveness of the conservation grazing program on the property and
its beneficial effects on grassland habitats. The components of the addendum are discussed in more detail
below.
a) Pasture Expansion: Expansion of conservation grazing within the RROSP to an additional 125 acres
in the south pasture. Under the existing grazing plan, there are 330 acres grazed on Mindego Ranch.
The expansion would bring the total acreage to 455 acres.
The pasture expansion area within Russian Ridge is situated adjacent to and south of the Mindego
Hill Trail, and east of Mindego Hill (Attachment 2). The proposed pasture expansion site is bordered
by Russian Ridge on the north, east and west, and by the former Silva Property, now District property,
to the south. Access to the site is via an all-weather gravel road off Alpine Road that runs east to
west for approximately 0.5 miles.
The proposed pasture expansion area is south sloping, comprised primarily of annual grasslands
with scattered dense stands of coyote brush and some oak trees. The pasture drains into a small
tributary that flows into Alpine Creek, within the San Gregorio Creek Watershed. Livestock access to
the stream channels would be controlled by natural buffers (steep terrain and dense vegetation) as
well as partial wildlife-friendly fencing, as needed. This portion of Alpine Creek drains into Mindego
Creek, downstream from the Cuesta La Honda Guild’s point of diversion.
Estimated Carrying Capacity: Proposed carrying capacity estimates for the south pasture expansion
area would be referenced as a starting point and be adjusted upward or downward as necessary
throughout the grazing season based on multiple factors including annual rainfall and available
forage. Carrying capacity estimates for the site include:
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum to the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
6 MROSD
Favorable Production Year
175.6 AUMs = Approximately 15 cows year-round or 30 cows for 6 months
Average Production Year
145.2 AUMs = Approximately 12 cows year-round or 24 cows for 6 months
Unfavorable Production Year
111.6 AUMs = Approximately 9 cows year-round or 18 cows for 6 months
b) Grazing Infrastructure: The addendum recommends several infrastructure improvements to optimize
effective use of conservation grazing as a rangeland management tool. The use of grazing animals
requires fencing and water sources for controlling the distribution of livestock to manage and protect
the natural resources.
Water infrastructure – 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 reduce impacts on natural waterways. No natural water sources are
present within the pasture expansion area to support grazing livestock. However, a clean and
reliable water source has been developed on Mindego Ranch that uses a natural spring with a solar
powered pump to supply water to a storage tank and water troughs in pastures adjacent to the
proposed expansion area (R-14-021). This existing water system can be modified to supply water to
the expansion area.
The project includes installation of three new wildlife-friendly concrete water troughs to supply water
to livestock and promote livestock distribution. Two of the new troughs would be located within the
pasture expansion area at sites that are minimally visible from the Mindego Hill Trail to reduce
aesthetic impacts. A third trough would be installed in the holding field/corral area above the
pasture. A new 5,000-gallon low-profile tank (partially buried in the ground) would be installed in the
corral area to supply the water troughs in the pasture expansion area. Installation of approximately
5,000 feet of pipe would be required to supply water to the new troughs and tank.
Pasture infrastructure – Approximately 5,000 linear feet of new fencing is proposed along the
eastern and southern pasture boundary. Fencing would be installed parallel to the Mindego Hill Trail
to the east and along the border of the former Silva Property, now District property, to the south. The
fence would be wildlife-friendly, per District standards. 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. Short
sections of fence may be required along the western boundary of the pasture to reinforce the natural
barrier of dense vegetation and steep terrain, which will contain livestock.
c) Monitoring Protocols: The monitoring plan for the grazed pastures on the Mindego Ranch portion of
Russian Ridge is designed to ensure that the specific rangeland uses are compliant with the
Mindego Grazing Plan, and land stewardship goals and objectives. The addendum recommends
using the protocols identified and used for the Mindego Grazing Plan to monitor the pasture
expansion area. In addition, six new photo point locations have been strategically selected to
monitor overall rangeland health, grazing infrastructure, and invasive vegetation.
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
MROSD 7
Exhibit 2 Proposed Minor Project Modification Area Map
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum to the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
8 MROSD
Exhibit 3 Proposed Grazing Infrastructure Map
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
MROSD 9
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF
PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
The purpose of this discussion below is to evaluate the environmental issue areas in terms of any “changed
condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance)
resulting from the proposed project modifications that may result in a different environmental impact
significance conclusion from the adopted 2014 IS/MND. Each resource issue area is addressed below.
4.1 AESTHETICS
The 2014 IS/MND identified less-than-significant and no impact/impacts associated with impacts on scenic
vistas, damage to scenic resources within a scenic highway corridor, changes in visual character, and
impacts from nighttime lighting.
The proposed grazing pasture expansion, grazing infrastructure and monitoring would occur within the same
general project area and have a similar appearance to the existing condition. Thus, the proposed minor
project additions would not substantially damage any scenic resources or substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. The proposed project additions include no new
lighting and would not create a new source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
Based on the above discussion, there are no new significant effects or substantial changes to the
environmental evaluation of aesthetic resources provided in the approved 2014 IS/MND that would occur
with the implementation of the proposed project additions. The proposed grazing expansion evaluated in this
addendum is visually consistent with the original project proposed in the 2014 IS/MND and would not
generate any new significant impacts related to aesthetics.
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The 2014 IS/MND identified less-than-significant and no impact/impacts associated with impacts on
farmlands, agricultural use, forest land or timberland. The local General Plans and Zoning Districts designate
the project area for open space and recreation. The existing public access along an existing trail adjacent to
the proposed project area facilitate open space and low intensity recreation, both of which are compatible
with the proposed cattle grazing, will remain. The proposed project parcels are not under a Williamson Act
contract. The proposed project area does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance, is not zoned for forest land or timberland, and would therefore have no impact on
these resources and would result in no change to the 2014 IS/MND conclusion.
4.3 AIR QUALITY
The 2014 IS/MND identified less-than-significant impacts with mitigation related to minor construction
activities (including road improvements) resulting in emission of fugitive dust (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5). As
indicated in the 2014 IS/MND, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant impact with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.31 (Basic Construction Mitigation Measures) and would not
conflict with any air quality plans.
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum to the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
10 MROSD
The 2014 IS/MND identified no impact or less-than-significant impacts associated with conflicts with
applicable air quality plans, a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, the exposure of sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people.
The proposed minor expansion would not result in new or more severe impacts because the proposed land
uses are consistent with the 2014 IS/MND, and the proposed construction activities are minor, temporary,
and a small subset of the construction activities considered in the 2014 IS/MND. However, like the original
approved project, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 where applicable (2014 IS/MND),
construction-related emissions of fugitive dust that could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to fugitive
dust emissions impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
For the reasons described above, no new significant effects or substantial changes to the environmental
evaluation of air quality impacts provided in the 2014 IS/MND would occur with implementation of the
proposed new project modifications.
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The 2014 IS/MND identified potentially significant impacts as a result of the original project on special
status species wildlife and plants, sensitive natural communities and wetlands. These impacts were
identified to be reduced to a less-than-significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1
through 3.4-4. The 2014 IS/MND identified a less-than-significant impact associated with the original project
on native species and interference with wildlife movement or conflicts with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources. There is no impact related to conflict with adopted or approved habitat
conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.
The proposed new minor project modifications are consistent with the U&M Plan and would not increase the
potential for impacts to biological resources. The project would now add a minor expansion of select actions
whose impacts were fully evaluated in the 2014 IS/MND. In addition, the expansion area is outside of the
site’s sensitive natural communities and riparian and wetland areas. With implementation of all appropriate
mitigation measures, no new impacts to biological resources would result from implementation of the
proposed project new modifications evaluated in this addendum.
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The 2014 IS/MND identified less-than-significant impacts associated with impacts to historical resources.
The 2014 IS/MND identified potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources, paleontological
resources, geological features and human remains. These impacts would be reduced to a less-than-
significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2.
The proposed grazing expansion, including grazing implementation of additional water and fencing
infrastructure and monitoring are consistent with the U&M Plan and the impacts of this type of work was
previously analyzed in the 2014 IS/MND. According to the Mindego Ranch Pond Rehabilitation
Archaeological Survey Report, the installation of fencing and water infrastructure at Mindego Ranch are
minor ground surface modifications or involve no subsurface excavation. Thus, there are no new significant
effects or substantial changes to the environmental evaluation of cultural resources provided in the
approved 2014 IS/MND that would occur with the implementation of the proposed project modifications.
The project modifications evaluated in this addendum are consistent with the project as proposed in the
2014 IS/MND and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures would not generate any new
significant impacts related to cultural resources.
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
MROSD 11
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The 2014 IS/MND identified less-than-significant and no impacts/impact related to geology and soils.
The proposed minor project modification evaluated in this addendum (i.e., grazing pastures expansion,
additional water and fence infrastructure and monitoring) is consistent with the project as proposed in the
2014 IS/MND and designed to the same standards and would not generate any new significant impacts
related to geology and soils. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the project would not result in
significant adverse geology, soils, or seismicity impacts to life or property.
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
To estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the approved project, GHG modeling was conducted using
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-approved California Emissions Estimator Model,
Version 2001.1.1 (CalEEMod), which includes widely accepted emission factors for cattle. The 2014 IS/MND
identified less-than-significant impacts associated with the generation of greenhouse gas emissions and
less-than-significant impacts from climate change on the approved project.
The proposed minor project addition would include an expansion of grazing, including implementation of
additional fencing and water system improvements and monitoring protocols. Within the 2014 IS/MND, GHG
emissions from construction were estimated to be 132 metric tons of C02 equivalent per year (MT
C02e/year) over the construction period and emissions from cattle were estimated to be 159 metric tons of
C02 equivalent per year (MT C02e/year). The proposed project modifications would result in approximately
93 MT C02e/year over the construction period, and 18 MT CO2e/year for the ongoing cattle operation.
As stated in the 2014 IS/MND, BAAQMD significance threshold for GHG emissions from construction (the
BAAQMD threshold identified for operations-related GHG emissions) is 1,100 MTC02e/year.
The proposed minor project modification would result in short-term construction-related vehicle trips, but
would not result in any new long-term operational-related vehicle trips. Construction would occur over a finite
period of time after which all construction-related GHG emissions would cease, and the construction phase
would not be the dominant source of GHG emissions from the project. The construction phase of the
proposed project would result in less-than-significant greenhouse gas emission impacts. The ongoing grazing
operation would also result in less-than-significant greenhouse gas emission impacts, therefore, the
proposed project modifications would not result in new or more severe impacts.
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The 2014 IS/MND identified potentially significant impacts related to significant hazards involving
hazardous materials or wildland fires. These impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant impact with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1, 3.8-2a, and 3.8-2b. The 2014 IS/MND identified less-than-
significant impacts related to hazards involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials, or the project occurring on a site that is listed as hazardous materials site, or within the vicinity of
a private airstrip resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impacts
were identified resulting from hazardous emissions or materials within the vicinity of an existing or proposed
school, the project being located within two miles of an airport or an airport land use plan, interfering with an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
The proposed project site is not identified on the Cortese list or other State or county hazardous materials
lists.
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum to the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
12 MROSD
The proposed minor project modifications are consistent with the U&M Plan and all applicable mitigation
measures related to hazards and hazardous materials will be followed in the implementation and operations
of the proposed minor project modifications. Thus, there are no new significant effects or substantial
changes to the environmental evaluation of hazards and hazardous materials provided in the approved
2014 IS/MND that would occur with the implementation of the proposed project modifications. The project
modifications would not generate any new significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The 2014 IS/MND found that the approved project, with the implementation of the mitigation measures,
would not result in significant hydrology and water quality impacts.
The original approved project was found to have potentially significant impacts related to water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements regarding road and trail erosion and/or sedimentation. The
approved U&M Plan includes actions, such as road and trail repair and maintenance projects to reduce
erosion, that will produce long-term benefits to surface water quality. Any potential impacts would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 (Storm water quality
Best Management Practices).
The 2014 IS/MND identified less-than-significant impacts associated with groundwater supply or recharge,
existing drainage patterns, runoff, non-point source pollution, exposure to flooding, seiche, tsunami or
mudflow. No impacts were identified associated with flood hazards to housing or impeding or redirecting
flood flows.
The original approved project includes cattle grazing within the Cuesta la Honda Guild watershed, However,
the grazing expansion area under consideration is outside of the Cuesta La Honda Guild watershed. The
proposed minor project modifications involve an expansion of grazing onto approximately 125 acres of
grassland, implementation of grazing water infrastructure and fencing, and monitoring protocols. All
applicable measures to address surface water impacts would be followed.
Because the proposed minor project modification is an expansion of the approved project, and is consistent
with the approved U&M Plan, with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures in the 2014
IS/MND, the project will not result in significant hydrology or water quality impacts.
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Land use and planning impacts could occur if the project would physically divide an established community,
if it would conflict with a land use policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental impact, or if it
would conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The
2014 IS/MND identified less-than-significant impacts resulting from conflicts with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect. The 2014 IS/MND identified no land use impacts resulting from the
approved project physically dividing an established community or conflicting with an applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
With the proposed minor modifications, the project remains still consistent with applicable land use plans
and policies, would not divide an established community, and would not result in adverse land use impacts.
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
MROSD 13
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
As discussed in the 2014 IS/MND, the approved project would have no impact on mineral resources and the
minor project does not alter this conclusion. The proposed minor project expansion would not result in the
loss of availability of a known mineral resource, and no mineral excavation sites are present within the
project area.
4.12 NOISE
The 2014 IS/MND identified less-than-significant impacts related to exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive noise and substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise. No impacts were identified
related to exposure of persons to groundborne vibration or a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
As identified in the 2014 IS/MND, there are no sensitive receptors located on the project site. Like the
approved U&M M Plan implementation, noise resulting from the implementation of the proposed grazing
expansion, including construction of grazing infrastructure, would be minimal and would not exceed
applicable noise standards or generate excessive ground vibrations. No new stationary or permanent noise
sources are planned, and therefore there is no increase in ambient noise levels.
The 2014 IS/MND identified no significant impacts related to the implementation or operational use of the
approved U&M Plan. As the proposed project modification is minor and consistent with the U&M Plan, the
proposed modifications would not result in new or more severe noise impacts.
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The 2014 IS/MND identified less-than-significant impacts related to induced population growth or
displacement of substantial numbers of existing homes. No impacts were associated with the displacement
of a substantial number of people.
The proposed minor project modification does not include any new housing, businesses, supporting
infrastructure or demolition of existing housing. The proposed minor project modifications would not result in
impacts related to population and housing.
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
The 2014 IS/MND identified less-than-significant impacts related to fire protection, police protection, and
parks. No impacts were identified relating to schools or other public facilities.
Consistent with the U&M Plan, the proposed minor project modification to expand grazing onto an additional
125 acres, would continue to meet the District’s goal of decreasing risk of wildland fire due to the re-
introduction of grazing on the property, which would reduce onsite fuels by controlling vegetation during the
fire season. Law enforcement service in the vicinity of the project site is currently provided by the San Mateo
County Sheriff’s Department (criminal) and District rangers (resource protection) and the proposed minor
modification would not result in increased demand for police protection such that new or expanded facilities
are necessary to maintain current service levels. The proposed project modification would not construct
housing or create jobs and, therefore, would not result in an increased demand for schools, parks, or other
public facilities.
The proposed minor project modifications would not result in new or more severe impacts to public services.
Attachment 4
Addendum to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum to the Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan IS/MND
14 MROSD
4.15 RECREATION
The proposed minor project modification to expand grazing does not include additional public access beyond
that considered in the 2014 IS/MND and the now existing public access will remain unaffected by the
proposed minor project modification.
The proposed minor project modification would not result in new or more severe impacts to recreation.
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The proposed minor project modifications consist of short-term minor construction activities and operations
associated with the addition pasture area. The ongoing operations of the proposed minor project
modification would not result in substantial additional vehicle trips and therefore, would not result in a
significant impact due to increased traffic.
This would constitute a less-than-significant impact related to traffic and circulation.
4.17 UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed minor project modification to expand grazing onto an additional 125 acres would be
implemented in a manner consistent to the U&M Plan analyzed in the 2014 IS/MND. The modification would
not include a restroom and therefore no wastewater would be generated and construction of new, or
expansion of existing, wastewater treatment facilities is not required. The proposed minor project
modification does not include any new drainage improvements beyond those considered in the 2014
IS/MND. The proposed water infrastructure improvements would use the existing, non-potable onsite spring
fed water system and therefore, consistent with the 2014 IS/MND, would result in no impact related to
water supply capacity. The proposed minor modification does not include any demolition beyond those
considered in the 2014 IS/MND and trash is managed in a manner consistent with the 2014 IS/MND.
The proposed minor project modification would not affect utilities or service systems.
5 CONCLUSION
The proposed grazing expansion, including water and fencing infrastructure and monitoring protocols, would
not alter any of the conclusions of the 2014 IS/MND. No significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would result. The proposed minor project
modifications would not affect any of the mitigation measures, including their feasibility or implementation.
As mentioned above, none of the conditions listed in section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines exist for the
project modification described herein. Therefore, pursuant to section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the
differences between the approved project described in the 2014 IS/MND and the modification of the project
as currently proposed and described in this addendum are minor and this addendum provides sufficient
environmental documentation.
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Resolutions/-__MNDAdendum 1
RESOLUTION NO. 20-__
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MINDEGO RANCH USE AND
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND APPROVING MINOR PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the
“District”) is the lead agency for environmental review of the Mindego Ranch Use and
Management Plan Project (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2014, the Board of Directors of the District (the “Board”)
adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Project by
approving Resolution No. 14-05; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the IS/MND and approval of the Project, the
District identified certain minor modifications to the Project, including additional areas of
grazing expansion, grazing infrastructure and monitoring (the “Project Modifications”); and
WHEREAS, the Project Modifications are desirable to the District because they will: 1)
enhance the District’s ability to fulfill the goals of the Project, which is to establish a grazing
program that aligns with the District’s mission by protecting sensitive species habitat and reduce
fuel loads within Mindego Ranch and Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve; and
WHEREAS, the District has prepared an Addendum to the IS/MND in accordance with
CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to describe the Modifications, which
is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Addendum”); and
WHEREAS, the Project Modifications constitute minor technical changes and would not
alter any of the conclusions, or result in new significant impacts to the environment, there is no
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND APPROVED by the Board of Directors as
follows:
1. The Addendum to the IS/MND fully describes the proposed minor changes to the
Project and has been prepared in compliance with CEQA (Cal. Public Resources
Code section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs.
section 15000 et seq.)
2. The Addendum reflects the Board of Directors’ independent judgment and
analysis.
3. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15164, the Addendum, considered
together with the IS/MND, adequately addresses the potential environmental
impacts associated with the Project Modifications.
Attachment 5
Resolutions/-__MNDAdendum 2
4. The documents and other materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the Board’s decision is based are located at the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Administration Office, 330 Distel
Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022.
5. The Addendum is hereby approved by the Board and shall be considered a part of
the District’s environmental review of the Project.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Jed Cyr, Secretary
Board of Directors
Karen Holman, President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilary Stevenson, 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.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
Exhibit A: Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mindego Ranch
Use and Management Plan
Attachment 5
Resolutions/-__MNDAdendum 1
RESOLUTION NO. 20-__
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MINDEGO RANCH USE AND
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND APPROVING MINOR PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the
“District”) is the lead agency for environmental review of the Mindego Ranch Use and
Management Plan Project (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2014, the Board of Directors of the District (the “Board”)
adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Project by
approving Resolution No. 14-05; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the IS/MND and approval of the Project, the
District identified certain minor modifications to the Project, including additional areas of
grazing expansion, grazing infrastructure and monitoring (the “Project Modifications”); and
WHEREAS, the Project Modifications are desirable to the District because they will: 1)
enhance the District’s ability to fulfill the goals of the Project, which is to establish a grazing
program that aligns with the District’s mission by protecting sensitive species habitat and reduce
fuel loads within Mindego Ranch and Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve; and
WHEREAS, the District has prepared an Addendum to the IS/MND in accordance with
CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to describe the Modifications, which
is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Addendum”); and
WHEREAS, the Project Modifications constitute minor technical changes and would not
alter any of the conclusions, or result in new significant impacts to the environment, there is no
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND APPROVED by the Board of Directors as
follows:
1. The Addendum to the IS/MND fully describes the proposed minor changes to the
Project and has been prepared in compliance with CEQA (Cal. Public Resources
Code section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs.
section 15000 et seq.)
2. The Addendum reflects the Board of Directors’ independent judgment and
analysis.
3. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15164, the Addendum, considered
together with the IS/MND, adequately addresses the potential environmental
impacts associated with the Project Modifications.
Attachment 5
Resolutions/-__MNDAdendum 2
4. The documents and other materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the Board’s decision is based are located at the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Administration Office, 330 Distel
Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022.
5. The Addendum is hereby approved by the Board and shall be considered a part of
the District’s environmental review of the Project.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Jed Cyr, Secretary
Board of Directors
Karen Holman, President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilary Stevenson, 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.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
Exhibit A: Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mindego Ranch
Use and Management Plan
MINDEGO HILL RANCH
GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN
PREPARED FOR:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
Attention: Mr. Kirk Lenington, Resource Planner
PREPARED BY:
SAGE Associates
1396 Danielson Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93108
(805) 969-0577 ph (805) 969-5003 fx sage@silcom.com
MROSD May 2008
Amended January 2013
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Background and Location 3
1.2 Purpose, Goals, and Policies of the Grazing Management Plan 3
2.0 REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL USES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY 11
3.0 RANGELAND MANAGEMENT 12
3.1 Historical Agricultural Uses 12
3.2 Existing Rangeland Soil Agricultural Characteristics 12
3.3 Rangeland Operations and Management 35
3.3.1 Rangeland Uses and Livestock Grazing Suitability 35
3.3.2 Livestock Stocking and Distribution 37
3.3.3 Rangeland/Habitat Health and Residual Dry Matter 37
3.3.4 Livestock Facilities 39
3.3.5 Livestock Fencing 39
3.3.6 Livestock Water Sources 40
3.4 Existing Rangeland Road Access Maintenance 40
4.0 EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCE CONDITIONS 40
4.1 Natural Resources 40
4.1.1 Vegetation Communities 40
4.1.2 Wildlife 43
4.2 Invasive and or Noxious Species 44
5.0 GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 48
5.1 Implementation of the Plan 48
5.2 Grazing Conservation Management Components 48
5.2.1 Grazing Management 48
5.2.1.1 Proposed Rangeland Conservation
Management Practices 48
5.2.1.2 Rangeland Infrastructure Requirements 52
5.2.2 Access Road Maintenance Requirements 56
5.2.3 Natural Resources Management 56
5.2.3.1 Vegetation 57
5.2.3.2 Wildlife 59
5.2.3.3 Riparian Corridors 59
5.2.3.4 Invasive and or Noxious Species 59
5.2.3.5 Water Quality 63
6.0 MONITORING PROGRAM 66
6.1 Photo Point Checklist #1, Description of Monitoring Items 67
6.2 Rangeland Habitat Health, Checklist #2 68
6.3 Adaptation 71
7.0 REFERENCES 72
Attachment 6
7.1 Plan Preparers 72
7.2 Persons/Organizations Consulted 72
7.3 Bibliography 72
Figures, Tables, and Photographs following section 3 in the text
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map 4
Figure 2 Location and Topographic Map 5
Figure 3 Existing Facilities and Infrastructure 6
Figure 4 Aerial Photograph and Photo Location Map 14
Figure 5 Soils Survey Map 30
Figure 6 Vegetation Map 42
Figure 7 Proposed Infrastructure Map 55
Figure 8 California Rangeland Resolution 9
Figure 9 California Rangeland Resolution Signatories 10
Tables
Table 1 Rangeland and Soil Characteristics 31,32
Table 2 Conservation Management Practices Summary 65
Photos
1 Mindego Hill Ranch entrance and Mindego Hill 15
2 View to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve 15
3 Ranch entrance area with Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve 16
4 Water tanks near the ranch entrance 16
5 Proposed relocated water tank and water trough locations 17
6 Proposed water trough location 17
7 Very steep side slope with cattle grazing 18
8 Top of Mindego Hill with cattle grazing 18
9 Upland ridges from Mindego Hill 19
10 Upland ridges from Mindego Hill with Knuedler Lake 19
11 Corral, and barn area of ranch 20
12 Horse arena 20
13 Corrals with Mindego Lake in background 21
14 Water tanks and trough 21
15 Mindego Lake and gully 22
16 Mindego Lake 22
17 Mindego Lake and Mindego Hill 23
18 Graded road, gully erosion, and roadside thistles 23
19 Ungraded road surface 24
20 Silted in stockpond 24
21 Overgrown road to Mindego Creek 25
22 Old hay meadow with spring, coyote brush, and poison oak 25
23 Proposed water tank and trough location-Mindego Hill is in background 26
24 Cattle grazing lower ridge area on south side of ranch 26
25 Proposed water trough location 27
Attachment 6
26 Ridge view of Knuedler Lake 27
27 Lower ridge areas on south side of ranch 28
28 Knuedler Lake with old fence/property line 28
29 Lower hillsides and meadow on south side of ranch 29
30 Red Man: 12-year old retired rodeo bull. Avoid!! (random location) 29
Appendices
Appendix A: Completed and Sample Monitoring Forms
Checklist 1: Photo Point Monitoring – Sample 77
Checklist 2: Rangeland/Habitat Health – Sample 78
Checklist 1: Photo Point Monitoring Blank Form 79
Checklist 2: Rangeland/Habitat Health Blank Form 80
Appendix B: NRCS 2007 California Rangeland Health Evaluation Matrix 81-84
Materials on recommended Conservation Management Practices are on file with MROSD
and available from the NRCS and Cooperative Extension.
Attachment 6
1 Sage Associates
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan
The Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan was prepared by Sage Associates in May of 2008 at the
request of Mr. Kirk Lenington-Resource Planner, for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(MROSD).
This plan incorporates materials supplied by Ms. Stella Cousins-Open Space Planner for MROSD including a
base aerial photograph map, a location map, an existing facilities and infrastructure map, a vegetation map
with vegetation acreages and descriptions. Additional information was obtained from the LSA Resource
Assessment of the Mindego Hill (True Ranch) (2002) on file with MROSD; and USDA Soil Survey information.
A field assessment was conducted in late April-early May of 2008 by Sage Associates to update grazing and
resource information and to determine water and fence locations and representative potential monitoring photo
points.
The 1,047-acre Mindego Hill Ranch (True Ranch, ranch, or Mindego Hill or Mindego or POST Mindego Ranch
descriptive terms are also used in various reports) is located in San Mateo County between Skyline and Alpine
Roads west of, and adjacent to the MROSD Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. The ranch, owned by the
True family for the past 50 years, was acquired by POST (Peninsula Open Space Trust) and was
subsequently acquired by MROSD.
Mindego Hill has been the site of cattle ranching since 1859, when Juan Mendico settled in the area with ranch
and residential infrastructure located northeast of Mindego Lake.
The ranch contains approximately 330 acres of grassland that are available for cattle grazing where
accessible along ridges, swales and foothill sideslopes. Elevations range from about 1,000 feet in the north
and south part of the ranch to 2,1430 feet at Mindego Hill. Topography varies from gently sloping ridgetops
and swales to very steep hillside areas.
The ranch includes northerly and westerly frontages on Mindego Creek, Mindego Lake, stockponds, and
Knuedler (also spelled Knudler and Kneedler) Lake. Also present as habitat that is not grazed are coastal
redwoods, Douglas fir, Madrone, coast live oak, California buckeye, tanoak, and other hardwoods, and mixed
chaparral to round out the remaining acreage.
MROSD Goals are 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. In order to implement this goal, the purpose of this plan is to provide a framework around
which resource managers can make rangeland management decisions on the properties with adaptive
management feedback.
As stipulated in this plan, conservation management practices components are to be implemented by the
MROSD and grazing lessee, for all grazing areas, and are included specifically to apply to Livestock Grazing
and Rangeland Management; Livestock and Wildlife Water Development; Livestock and Wildlife Fencing
Maintenance; Land Management; Roads and Infrastructure Maintenance; and Wildlife, Water Quality, and
Habitat Management on the 330-acre portion of the ranch that is to be used for grazing land operations. The
remaining 717 acres include brushland and woodland that are not suitable for livestock grazing but provide
valuable wildlife habitat and cover.
Operation and Infrastructure Requirements: Cattle coming onto the ranch will be off-loaded at a new corral
location water trough just to the southeast of the entrance road near gate RR12. The cattle shall be fed for 24
hours in the corrals and then rotated into the pastures. To minimize introduction of noxious weeds, only locally
sourced and or certified weed-free hay shall be fed.
For invasive plant control-continuous grazing shall occur in all pasture areas from February into June
depending on available forage. New grass growth should be four to six inches or residual dry matter should be
Attachment 6
2 Sage Associates
three to five inches prior to the commencement of grazing. Rest of any one pasture is not recommended since
invasive plant growth will increase without grazing pressure.
Total carrying capacity estimates for the 330 acres of rangeland on the ranch are about 330 animal unit
months or about 27 animal units per year or about 66 animal units for five month (one animal unit is 1,00 0
pounds of grazing animal such as a large cow). Average weight 500- pound stocker steers or heifers grazing
for five months would equate to 132 head. These are estimates, and first year stocking in a normal rainfall
pattern should start with no more than the lower number in the above ranges. Stocking intensity may require a
downward or upward adjustment depending on rainfall amounts and distribution and temperatures. The lessee
shall be able to make necessary stocking adjustment during the grazing season in order to achieve the
performance standards as closely as possible. Performance standards are included below per average slope:
0 to 30% slopes: an average minimum of two inches to three inches of residual dry matter –
approximately an average of 600 – 1,000 pounds per acre as slopes become steeper.
Greater than 30% slopes: an average minimum of three to four inches of residual dry matter –
approximately an average of 1,000 to 1,200 pounds per acre as slopes become steeper.
To improve RDM distribution and resource management, salt blocks and protein supplements shall be placed
by the lessee at least 1/8 mile away from accessible water sources and any future public access roads and
trails. Salt locations should be moved periodically to further improved forage utilization and so as not to over
utilize any given area. No hay shall be fed other than in the corrals, as stipulated in the lease.
For reliable well-distributed cattle and wildlife water, the future lessee and MROSD-installed water
infrastructure improvements will require repair/replacement of four existing water troughs, five new troughs,
one or two new water tanks, moving of an existing water tank, as well as gravel pads for the water tanks and
all troughs, an electric booster pump, pipe fittings, float valves, pressure regulators/air vents, and escape
ramps will also be needed to complete the installation. Water infrastructure implementation costs are
estimated to be about $28,650.
Perimeter fencing, exclusionary fencing, drift fencing, lake fencing, and new gates and gate repair and
installation are estimated to be about $10,500. The aforementioned improvements may be eligible for rent
credit through the lessee’s arrangements with MROSD.
MROSD roads and road infrastructure maintenance should be coordinated with the future cattle lessee. Roads
are minimally maintained and are in good condition at this time. However, over the years, stretches of road will
require periodic water bar diversions, culvert and potential gully maintenance. Secondary ranch roads shall be
minimally graded and mowed in order to maintain a natural ground cover to help prevent erosion.
During the grazing season, fencing and water infrastructure maintenance and repairs are the responsibility of
the lessee.
The monitoring program for grazed MROSD lands must ensure that the specified rangeland uses are in
compliance with the applicable land use regulations and the land stewardship goals, objectives, and
implementing guidelines. Rangeland/habitat health checklists and photo point monitoring forms are to be
utilized for the rangeland-monitoring program on an annual basis in the fall prior to rainfall. The monitoring
program implementation shall be the responsibility of MROSD staff. In addition, the cattle grazing schedule,
herd type, and stocking rates shall be provided to MROSD by the grazing lessee in the fall prior to monitoring
and shall be included with the fall MROSD monitoring report. Monitoring results can also be used as a
guideline for any future adaptive management changes that may be shown to be necessary from the
monitoring.
Attachment 6
3 Sage Associates
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Location
Sage Associates prepared the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan in May of 2008 at the request of
Mr. Kirk Lenington-Resource Planner, for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD).
This plan incorporates materials supplied by Ms. Stella Cousins-Open Space Planner for MROSD including a
base aerial photograph map, a location map, an existing facilities and infrastructure map, a vegetation map
with vegetation acreages and descriptions. Additional information was obtained from the LSA Resource
Assessment of the Mindego Hill (True Ranch) (2002) on file with MROSD; and USDA Soil Survey information.
A field assessment was conducted in late April-early May of 2008 by Sage Associates to update grazing and
resource information and to determine water and fence locations and representative potential monitoring photo
points.
The 1,047-acre Mindego Hill Ranch (True Ranch, ranch, or Mindego Hill or Mindego or POST Mindego Ranch
descriptive terms are also used in various reports) is located in San Mateo County between Skyline and Alpine
Roads west of, and adjacent to the MROSD Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Figures 1 and 2). The
ranch, owned by the True family for the past 50 years, was acquired by POST (Peninsula Open Space Trust)
and was subsequently acquired by MROSD.
Mindego Hill has been the site of cattle ranching since 1859, when Juan Mendico settled in the area with ranch
and residential infrastructure located northeast of Mindego Lake (Figures 2 and 3). The True family will
continue to run livestock on the ranch into the summer or fall of 2008.
The ranch contains approximately 330 acres of grassland that are available for cattle grazing where
accessible along ridges, swales and foothill sideslopes. Elevations range from about 1,000 feet in the north
and south part of the ranch to 2,143 feet at Mindego Hill. Topography varies from gently sloping ridgetops and
swales to very steep hillside areas (Figure 2).
The ranch includes northerly and westerly frontages on Mindego Creek, Mindego Lake, stockponds, and
Knuedler (also spelled Knudler and Kneedler) Lake. Also present as habitat that is not grazed are coastal
redwoods, Douglas fir, Madrone, coast live oak, California buckeye, tanoak, and other hardwoods, and mixed
chaparral to round out the remaining acreage.
The MROSD future stewardship of the ranch supports the protection of valuable habitat, watershed and scenic
resources while supporting environmentally sustainable grazing use within the Mindego Creek and Alpine
Creek watersheds of the ranch.
1.2 Purpose, Goals, and Policies of the Grazing Management Plan
The purpose of this plan is to provide a framework around which resource managers can make rangeland
management decisions on the ranch with adaptive management feedback once MROSD begins the grazing
management and monitoring. The plan addresses appropriate management practices for soil and water
conservation, erosion control, pest management, nutrient management, water quality, and habitat protection
on the 330-acre grassland portions of the ranch that are to be used for grazing land operations that have
suitable cattle access. Some of the westerly grassland and other dense shrublands are not suitable for grazing
due to the inability of cattle to access these areas because of slope, or dense tree or brush cover and shallow
soils. The remaining approximately 717 acres include water bodies, forest, shrubland, brushland, and
Attachment 6
4 Sage Associates
woodland that are not suitable for livestock grazing but provide very valuable wildlife habitat and cover.
Attachment 6
5 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
6 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
7 Sage Associates
The Mission Statement of the MROSD 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 the spirit of the Mission Statement, in September 2006 the MROSD staff 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.
Policies and Implementation Measures:
1 Ensure that grazing is compatible with and supports wildlife and wildlife habitats.
• Inventory and assess sensitive habitats to identify areas requiring special protection. The
conservation of these areas will take precedence over other uses and management practices that are
determined to have an adverse effect on these resources. Section 4 of the plan.
• Prepare site-specific management plans by a certified rangeland manager for preserves where
grazing will be utilized as a resource management tool. Section 7.1 of the plan.
• Manage agricultural leases and easements to protect and enhance riparian areas and to maximize
the protection or enhancement of water quality. Sections 5.2.3.3 and 5.2.3.5 of the plan.
2 Provide necessary infrastructure to support and improve grazing management where appropriate.
• Utilize fencing that allows wildlife movement and fosters habitat connectivity. Section 5.2.1.2 of the
plan.
• Encourage and assist grazing tenants on District land to provide range improvements to restore or
conserve wildland resources and to enhance range condition. Section 5.2.1.2 of the plan.
• Inventory and assess roads and trails on District lands to identify significant erosion and sediment
sources abandon and where feasible restore to a natural condition poorly designed or sited roads.
Sections 3.4 and 5.2.2 of the plan.
• Provide water sources and protect water quality from degradation resulting from grazing animals.
Sections 5.2.1.2 and5.2.3.5 of the plan.
3 Monitor vegetation response to grazing on District lands.
• Monitor forage utilization and distribution by grazing animals to assure appropriate amounts of
residual dry matter remain on the ground to achieve desired resource management objectives. Section
6 of the plan.
• Monitor livestock use levels and infrastructure condition to insure conformity with lease provisions to
contribute to improved management. Section 6 of the plan.
• Monitor wildland conditions with an emphasis on documenting the location, distribution and
abundance of native grasses, wildflowers, and other native flora and fauna. Section 6 of the plan.
Attachment 6
8 Sage Associates
• Monitor non-native vegetation response to grazing with an emphasis on documenting the location,
distribution and abundance of target invasive species. Sections 4.2, 5.2.3.4 and 6 of the plan.
4 Utilize different livestock species to accomplish vegetation management objectives.
• Research the effective use of cattle, goats, sheep, and horses to manage vegetation on District
lands. Section 5.2.1.1 of the plan.
5 Provide public access in a manner that does not fragment the grazing operation unless no feasible
alternative is available.
• Grazing operators on District lands or lands under easement to the District shall be consulted when
public access is being planned and considered for the property to minimize conflicts between the public
and the grazing operation. On-going with operators.
Additional validation of the MROSD purposes, goals, and policies for working landscapes comes from The
California Rangeland Resolution that recognizes the critical importance of California’s rangelands along with
practices that benefit sensitive species that are fully compatible with normal ranching practices, maintaining
and enhancing working landscapes, and public education about the benefits of rangeland grazing. The
resolution has been signed by federal and state agencies, and conservation organizations and is included at
the end of this section. University research has also shown that social benefits of working landscapes help to
safeguard ecosystems, protect open space, and maintain traditional ranching culture (Brunson and Huntsinger
(2008). Further support for managed cattle grazing for sensitive habitats and species, includes ongoing
university research that seeks to explain why some threatened aquatic invertebrates such as the California
tiger salamander and the California red-legged frog appear to be more abundant in grazed than in ungrazed
stockponds (DiDonato, 2007). (See Figure 8)
Attachment 6
9 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
10 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
11 Sage Associates
2.0 REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL USES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY
tThe MROSD Grazing Management goals state:
“Livestock ranching is a small but vital part of the Bay Area’s agricultural economy. As with any business that
depends on local infrastructure and services, livestock ranching is increasingly threatened with each ranch
that goes out of business. Every livestock rancher depends on services and supplies including veterinary care,
feed sales and delivery, farm and ranch infrastructure supplies, and livestock transportation services. As land
is taken out of ranching, all of these services and supplies are incrementally affected and may cease to
operate, increasing the burden for families and businesses who choose to keep ranching”.
In a regional context, for San Mateo County, agricultural production continued to provide a significant total
gross value of $168,523,000 for 2006-an increase of 3.9 percent above 2005. The 2007 crop report was not
yet completed at the time that this plan was prepared. Specific 2006 production values for San Mateo County
included the following:
COMMODITY GROSS VALUE
Floral and Nursery Crops $136,021,000
Vegetable Crops $22,655,000
Forest Products $4,045,000
Livestock $2,343,000
Fruit and Nut Crops $2,043,000
Livestock and Apiary Products (cheese, eggs, wool) $756,000
Field Crops $660,000
Cattle and calves comprised 2,837 head in 2006-up from 2,407 head in 2005, with a total gross value of
$1,802,000-up from $1,363,000 in 2005. Sheep and lambs comprised 924 head in 2006-up from 854 head in
2005, with a total gross value of $91,000-up from $83,000 in 2005. Livestock are grazed on about 30,000
acres of rangeland in San Mateo County. For every dollar on agricultural production, a multiplier of 3.5 may be
applied to approximate production, employment, and associated values. Thus, the economic value of
agriculture in San Mateo County is about $590,000,000 (San Mateo County Department of Agriculture, 2006).
For every dollar on agricultural production, a multiplier of 3.5 may be applied, thus, the economic value of
agriculture in San Mateo County is about
Existing Future agricultural activities on MROSD lands will contribute to the overall agricultural productivity of
San Mateo County, and to that of the adjacent counties of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. Currently, the Driscoll
Ranch, Tunitas Creek Ranch, and Big Dipper/Silva Ranch are being utilized for cattle grazing under MROSD
management and monitoring. The MROSD La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve may also be utilized for
grazing in the future.
Attachment 6
12 Sage Associates
3.0 RANGELAND MANAGEMENT
3.1 Historical Agricultural Uses
The Mindego Hill Ranch has been utilized for cattle grazing since 1859. The True family has grazed livestock
on the ranch for the last 50 years and will continue to do so into the fall of 2008.
A telephone interview with Ms. Veronica True in January 2008, who has been on the ranch for 30 years,
included the following information.
• Current grazing operations average about 120 cow/calve pairs, 15 to 20 horses, and 10 bulls year around
with supplemental feeding from about August into winter.
• Livestock water is supplied from lakes, springs, and creeks, water tanks and with three maintained water
troughs near the house.
• There are two small holding fields on 50 acres, and 20 acres near the house with the remaining ranch grazed
as one large pasture.
• Stock trailer access with a four-wheel drive truck is adequate for moving livestock.
• The ranch grazing areas are limited by steep slopes, and some brush with some invasive thistles. They mow
the thistles in the spring and do not use herbicides. They would like to see Russian Hill grazed in order to
reduce thistles in that area.
• Corrals are portable. Perimeter barriers and fencing are adequate for gentle cattle.
• Coyotes and feral dogs have been a problem with newborn calves.
3.2 Existing Rangeland Soil Agricultural Characteristics
To assess existing grazing land conditions 30 representative photos were taken of the ranch on April 30th and
May 1st of 2008 and are included below. The photo locations are shown regionally on the Photo Location Map
(Figure 4). These photos serve a dual purpose by showing existing grazing land areas and habitat conditions
and selected photos can also be utilized for photo monitoring of grazing land and habitat conditions in the
future as discussed in Section 6.0.
For convenience, a “quick glance” list of photo location numbers and titles are summarized below. The photo
numbers may be referred to in subsequent text discussions and tables.
Photos of Mindego Hill Ranch
1 Mindego Hill Ranch entrance and Mindego Hill
2 View to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve
3 Ranch entrance area with Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve
4 Water tanks near the ranch entrance
5 Proposed relocated water tank and water trough locations
6 Proposed water trough location
7 Very steep side slope with cattle grazing
8 Top of Mindego Hill with cattle grazing
9 Upland ridges from Mindego Hill
10 Upland ridges from Mindego Hill with Knuedler Lake
11 Corral, and barn area of ranch
12 Horse arena
13 Corrals with Mindego Lake in background
Attachment 6
13 Sage Associates
14 Water tanks and trough
15 Mindego Lake and gully
16 Mindego Lake
17 Mindego Lake and Mindego Hill
18 Graded road, gully erosion, and roadside thistles
19 Ungraded road surface
20 Silted in stockpond
21 Overgrown road to Mindego Creek
22 Old hay meadow with spring, coyote brush, and poison oak
23 Proposed water tank and trough location-Mindego Hill is in background
24 Cattle grazing lower ridge area on south side of ranch
25 Proposed water trough location
26 Ridge view of Knuedler Lake
27 Lower ridge areas on south side of ranch
28 Knuedler Lake with old fence/property line
29 Lower hillsides and meadow on south side of ranch
30 Red Man 12-year old retired rodeo bull. Avoid!! (random
location)
Attachment 6
14 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
15 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
16 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
17 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
18 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
19 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
20 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
21 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
22 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
23 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
24 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
25 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
26 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
27 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
28 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
29 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
30 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
31 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
32 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
33 Sage Associates
The Mindego Hill Ranch encompasses 21 Soil Series across the approximately 1,047 acres (U. S. Department
of Agriculture - USDA, 1961, and 1969). These soils are shown on the USDA Soils Survey Map (Figure 5).
For brevity, the soil agricultural characteristics of the 21 Soil Series are included in Table 1. This Table
summarizes the available USDA Soil Survey data along with up to date field observations and a total cattle
grazing carrying capacity estimate.
Salient soil agricultural characteristics are summarized below by table column. The introduction and placement
of these tables in this section facilitates reference and discussion of the content in later sections of this plan.
The terms rangeland/grazing land, and the terms soil types/soil series have the same meaning in this plan.
Column 1: Soil Series-Texture and Soil Survey Map Symbol (USDA): includes the Soil Series name and soil
texture, the Soil Survey map symbol per the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) mapping.
The last soil listed on Page 2 of Table 1 will be used as an example since this is the largest soil type on the
ranch that is utilized for cattle grazing. The Soil Series (or soil type) is named Sweeney, the texture is stony
clay loam, and the Soils Survey Map symbol is SzF2.
Column 2: Includes the USDA Range Sites that are comprised of Soil Series that have similar textures and
produce similar types and amounts of forage. These sites are used as the basis for forage production
estimated by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the University of California
Cooperative Extension (UCCE). Range Sites within the rangeland areas of the ranch include Clayey - 2, Fine
Loamy - 5, Fine Loamy Steep - 2, Fine Loamy Very Steep - 1, Loamy - 3, Loamy Steep - 1, and Loamy Very
Steep - 2. Five Soil Series are not assigned Range Sites due to their marginal forage production, dense
canopy cover, and timbered or brushland areas (Photo 21). The most productive forage producing areas
include the grasslands of the Clayey, Fine Loamy and Loamy Range Sites (Examples-Photos 1, 3, 9, 10, 22,
24, 26, 27, and 29).
The SzF2 soil is in the Fine Loamy Very Steep Range Site that is limited in usable forage production by the
steep side slopes (Photo 7) and/or vegetative canopy cover.
Also included in this column are the Primary Habitats per the Vegetation Map (Figure 6). Primary habitats
include grassland, shrubland, woodland, and forest. The Clayey, various Fine Loamy, and various Loamy
Range Sites are comprised of various percentages of grassland, weedy ruderal, and shrubland, with minor
woodland and forest concentrations in drainages. Weedy ruderal and purple star-yellow star thistle vegetation
types are comprised of grassland and shrubland with higher concentrations of noxious or weedy plants. See
Section 4.0 for a more complete explanation of vegetation types.
The SzF2 soil has Primary Habitats comprised of grassland, shrubland, and forest.
Column 3: Includes the acres for the various Soil Series.
The SzF2 soil encompasses about 285 acres of the ranch.
Column 4: Includes the average slope percentage and erosion hazard for each Soil Series per USDA
mapping. Swales and ridgetops generally slope from five to 16 percent, side hills range from about 15 to 45
percent, and steeper slope and canyon areas are greater than 45 percent. Slopes greater than 45 percent are
less well utilized by livestock and may also have a dense canopy cover and require more ground cover to
reduce erosion. Slope is factored into estimated carrying capacity determinations. Most soils have some areas
that are less steep that depicted by the average slope category. Erosion hazards range from slight to very high
and are predicated upon soil texture, and slope. Soils located on steeper slopes would be more erosion prone.
Soil creep is apparent on the steeper side slope areas (Photo 7) and is due to the natural down slope
movement of soil due to gravity and the use of side slope trails by cattle and wildlife.
Attachment 6
34 Sage Associates
The SzF2 soil has average slopes that are greater than 45 percent and a very high erosion hazard. This soil
does have some ridgetop areas (Photo 25) that are less steeply sloping than the steeper side hill areas (Photo
7).
Column 5: Shows the average percent canopy cover for the vegetation on each Soil Series as observed in the
field. The higher percentages of canopy cover greater than about 25 percent, such as in coyote bush and in
chaparral, woodland, and forest, results in a lesser amount of palatable grazing forage and usable grazing
areas. For example, 50 percent canopy cover could reduce forage production by 50 percent (Photo 22). Total
canopy cover of 100 percent brush or forest would reduce forage production to essentially zero (Photo 21).
Canopy cover is factored into estimated carrying capacity determinations.
The SzF2 soil has a canopy cover that averages from 0 to 100 percent with shrubland, chaparral, woodland,
and forest encroachment and concentrations in the grassland areas creating the canopy cover that can reduce
grassland productivity by shading and physically occupying the grassland areas.
Column 6: Shows the average year rangeland dry matter productivity per Range Site in animal unit months
(AUMs) per acre as determined by the USDA in the Soil Surveys, UCCE in published research, and by
assessing the amount of forage and canopy cover observed in the field. Favorable years will produce more
forage and unfavorable years will produce less forage, hence the variation in productivity. Rainfall amounts
and distribution, and temperatures can greatly influence rangeland productivity in any given year. By
convention, rangeland productivity is measured as dry matter in pounds per acre. For example, a 1,000-pound
cow will consume about three percent of its body weight in the equivalent of dry forage per day. Approximately
11,000 pounds of dry forage will be consumed by a 1,000-pound cow (an animal unit) per year or about 30
pounds per day or slightly more than 900 pounds per month. See Appendix B for tabular carrying capacity
summaries as prepared by NRCS, and UCCE.
The less steeply sloping Clayey, Fine Loamy, and Loamy Range Sites have the greatest usable forage. As
slopes increase, more forage must be left on the side slopes to help prevent erosion; and as canopy cover
increases, less forage is available.
The SzF2 soil can support about 0.2 animal unit months per acre. It would take about sixty acres to support
one animal unit grazing for one year. The steep side slopes and canopy cover reduces the available forage
and thus the carrying capacity of this soil.
Column 7: Lists by Range Site the required recommended required residual dry matter (RDM) per average
slope per USDA NRCS and University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) guidelines. A moderate
level of rotational grazing is recommended by both the USDA and UCCE so that all forage types are more
evenly utilized, reseeding of annual and perennial grasses is encouraged, and erosion is controlled. A
minimum of approximately 600 to 1,000 pounds per acre of residual dry matter (RDM) is required by this plan
on slopes from zero to 30 percent, and 1,000-1,200 pounds per acre on slopes greater than 30 percent. The
RDM requirements in this plan are slightly higher than NRCS and UCCE guidelines because of the potential
for periods of intense rainfall and the pre disposed erosion potential for the steeper soils.
The SzF2 soil RDM should be about 1,200 pounds per acre due to average slope of >45 percent and a very
high erosion hazard. Less sloping ridgetop areas or swales would require less RDM (Photo 25).
Column 8: Lists Livestock Use Limitations by Soil Series that may include woodland-forest cover, steep
slopes, erosion, brush cover, cattle access, weeds, rocks, and poor forage production.
The SzF2 soil has trees, brush, slope, erosion, and rocks as limitations to grazing.
Column 9: Rangeland health indicators have been developed in 1997, and modified in 2007, by the USDA
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS formerly the Soil Conservation Service) in order to assess
departures from normal rangeland characteristics. Overall normal rangeland health maintains or improves soil
fertility, reduces erosion and sedimentation, improves water quality, allows for plant community biodiversity
Attachment 6
35 Sage Associates
and management, and provides suitable habitat for wildlife. Observations are made in the field that rely on
rangeland health checklists. Rangeland health across the ranch grasslands is quite variable due to infestations
of invasive thistles. Thus, rangeland health varies from Normal to Extreme depending on the specific location
and thistle concentrations.
The SzF2 soil has Normal to Extreme rangeland health designations because of variable invasive plant
concentrations.
Column 10: Portrays the dominant grazing suitability as observed in the field for each pasture area. A
summary of grazing suitability limitations is also included and discussed further in later sections. Basically,
livestock use limitations such as weeds, brush, slope, livestock water availability, forage productivity, livestock
access, and soil quality determine whether an area has a higher, moderate, lower, or unsuitable suitability.
The SzF2 soil has a Higher-Unsuitable grazing suitability because of the described limitations.
Column 11: Includes estimated carrying capacity determinations in an average forage production year in
animal units. One animal unit per year equates to one animal unit grazing for 12 months or 12 animal unit
months. An animal unit month is how much forage dry matter a 1,000-pound grazing animal will consume in
one month (typically 900 pounds). An animal unit is 1,000 pounds of grazing animal such as a cow/calve pair,
two-500 pound steers, or five-200 pound sheep, etc.
The carrying capacity summary at the end of the column is based on historic use, USDA production estimates,
and field observations by Sage Associates (2008).
Total carrying capacity estimates for the 330 acres of grassland on the ranch are about 330 animal unit
months or about 27 animal units per year or about 66 animal units for five months. Average weight 500- pound
stocker steers or heifers grazing for five months would equate to about 132 head. These are estimates, and
first year stocking in a normal rainfall pattern should perhaps start slightly lower at about 60 animal units for
five months.
Summaries of the above columns will be utilized in many of the following plan sections.
3.3 Existing Rangeland Operations and Management
The ranch at the time of the field assessments in late April-early May of 2008 included grazing of a variety of
livestock including horses, Brahma cows and calves (Photo 8), Brahma steers (Photo 7), cross bred
Angus/Brahma cows and calves (Photo 24) and Brahma bulls (Photo 30).
3.3.1 Rangeland Uses and Livestock Grazing Suitability
The 330 acres of grassland are suitable for livestock grazing due to the abundance of the annual grassland
forage, however, noxious plants do reduce suitability at this time. The ranch soils and habitats do allow for
management practices to occur that will be favorable for enhancing grassland bio-diversity and to manage fuel
loads.
The following general observations were made of the ranch during the field assessments and mapping for the
plan that will influence the implementation of future rangeland and habitat management practices as discussed
in Section 5.
• Topography and slopes vary from nearly level ridge tops and swales to very steeply sloping side hills and
canyons. The steeper side slopes are more difficult to graze.
• Rangeland areas vary from 100 percent annual grassland to ungrazed habitats containing dense areas of
brushland, shrubland, and woodland.
Attachment 6
36 Sage Associates
• Range conditions for palatable livestock forage are excellent where concentrations of wild oats, soft chess,
fescue, vetch, clovers, rye grass, filaree, and bur clover predominate to poor where thistles predominate. Old
hay feeding areas along roads and at the corrals contribute to the highest concentrations of purple star, yellow
star, milk, bull, Italian, Spanish, and distaff thistle varieties (Photos 11, 13, and 18). Other rangeland areas may
contain scattered thistles or may be open grassland (Photo 29).
• Livestock water infrastructure is limited to the holding fields and corrals (Photos 11 and 14). Other water
sources include the lakes (Photos 16 and 28), a silted-in spring/stockpond (Photo 20), and surface springs
(22).
• Cattle grazing distribution and access would improve with water infrastructure improvements since cattle trail
from the south side of the ranch around Mindego Hill to Mindego Lake. The Douglas Fir/Coast Redwood
woodland south and west of Mindego Lake contains numerous cattle trails.
• Access roads are minimally maintained (Photo 19) with some grading (Photo 18) and provide sufficient
pasture access for a four-wheel drive vehicle. Some roads are no longer maintained west of the cabin, to
Mindego Creek, and southeast of and below Mindego Hill.
• Perimeter fencing appears to be adequate for the existing grazing operation. Natural livestock barriers of
steep topography coupled with rock and dense vegetation have been utilized as perimeter and pasture
barriers historically. Corrals are inadequate and the steel panels will be removed by the True’s. A new corral
location and additional pasture drift fencing and gates will be needed.
• Site erosion is negligible as related to cattle grazing and natural erosion. Natural soil does occur in some of
the steeper side slopes. One erosion gully exists east of Mindego Lake (Photos 15 and 18) that is probably a
result of road runoff.
From the field assessments, the dominate livestock grazing suitability was determined for the ranch which
reflects the Higher, Moderate, Lower, or Unsuitable livestock grazing suitability areas as summarized in Table
1. These areas may transition rapidly from one designation to the other depending on slope, and the amount
of shrubland, brushland, and forest encroachment into the grasslands.
Higher suitability areas have no constraints to grazing. Slopes average zero to about 30 percent. Livestock
water potential improvements and fencing are needed to achieve a higher suitability rating once grazing
commences. Access is good. Non-forage canopy cover ranges from about 0 to 25 percent and is comprised
primarily of areas of some coyote bush, and/or thistle. Harding grass may occur in some of the rangeland but
is considered as forage if grazed properly. Typical areas include grassland-dominated swales, ridge tops, and
flats (Photos 8, 24, 27, and 29). Coyote bush and thistle may occur in these areas and will require
management (Photo 22).
Moderate suitability areas can be well utilized; however, slopes average 30 to 45 percent with average non-
forage canopy cover to about 75 percent consisting mainly of areas of shrubland, brushland, and woodland.
Livestock water development is needed. Typical areas include steeper ridge side-slopes (Photos 1 lower area,
and 23). Livestock will readily use these areas but it requires more energy to graze the slope areas or to walk
further to water. More residual dry matter must be left on side slopes to help prevent erosion. Thistle may also
occur.
Lower suitability areas are utilized less, or are more difficult for livestock access and water availability. Slopes
average usually greater than 45 percent and/or average non-forage canopy cover varies from 25 to 100
percent (Photos 7, 9, and 10). Typical areas include partial brushy and woodland steep side-slopes, and
difficult to access grassland in upland areas. Abundant edge areas exist. In grassland areas, more residual dry
matter is required on the steeper side slopes to help prevent erosion. Livestock water development is needed.
Cattle can utilize many of these areas but with greater energy expenditure due to more difficult access.
Attachment 6
37 Sage Associates
Unsuitable areas are primarily utilized for livestock shelter and shade with minor areas of interior livestock
forage (Photos 17 and 21). Average slopes may be greater than 45 percent with non-forage canopy cover up
to 100 percent. Typical areas include dense brushy uplands, rock outcrops, timbered canyons, woodlands,
and steep slopes that cannot be traversed by livestock. Areas are commonly used for nesting, denning, and
browse by wildlife and as wildlife trails, corridors and shelter. Wildlife water is abundant in most larger
drainage areas that are inaccessible to livestock due to steepness, or dense vegetation.
3.3.2 Livestock Stocking and Distribution
Rangeland assessments typically equate stocking rates to a particular "level" or intensity of cattle grazing as is
summarized below from UCCE research.
Stocking Intensity Visual Characteristics of Rangeland
Light Little or no patchy appearance; unused plant matter greater than five
inches and small objects on ground are not visible. Plant decadence
and invasive plant infestations may occur.
Moderate Two to five inches of unused plant material remains; little bare soil;
patchy vegetation appearance (UCCE recommended).
Heavy Less than two inches plant material remains; small objects and bare
soil are highly visible.
A moderate level of grazing is recommended by NRCS and UCCE so that all forage types are more evenly
utilized, reseeding of annual and perennial grasses is encouraged, and erosion is controlled. Heavy grazing
does not leave adequate RDM for reseeding and erosion control. Light grazing, even with rigorous planned
pasture rotation, often allows animals to pick and choose the more palatable plants while leaving less
desirable plants such as mustard, fennel, and thistles to more readily reproduce even though overall RDM
levels may be higher. Coyote bush encroachment into grassland is also encouraged by light grazing or non-
grazing of grassland areas.
At the time of the site assessment in April and May of 2008 livestock grazing was occurring with ample spring
grassland cover due to rains in January and February but a dry March and April. South facing slopes and
areas of shallow soils were starting to turn brown as grasses and forbs were maturing. No salt blocks were on
the range at this time.
Cattle were extensively trailing from the south side of the ranch to Mindego Lake for water and heavily
trampling the spring location on the south side of the lake and utilizing the riparian willow on the south and
west side of the lake.
Cattle distribution is predicated by management practices, available water, cross fencing, temperatures, slope,
and access. Placement of livestock watering locations and salt locations can improve distribution and
manipulate grazing patterns away from sensitive riparian resources (George, 2007).
Cattle distribution is excellent to poor depending primarily on water availability access, and slope (See Section
3.3.6). Ranch roads and trails provide existing access.
With the proposed management practices discussed in Section 5, cattle distribution should improve.
3.3.3 Rangeland/Habitat Health and Residual Dry Matter
Rangeland evaluations in previous years relied on a description of range conditions that compared the present
forage production capacity of an area to a desirable standard that was a product of long-term grazing
Attachment 6
38 Sage Associates
management. Numerically, range condition and production standards were formulated whereby the following
percentages of desirable range grasses and forbs included:
Range Condition Production* = percent of potential forage capacity
Excellent 75 to 100%
Good 50 to 75%
Fair 25 to 50%
Poor-Very Poor less than 25%
Overall existing range conditions on the ranch range from excellent to very poor depending on the type of
forage or invasive vegetation present in the grassland areas. Areas of invasive thistle, and some coyote bush
reduce range conditions by out competing both native perennial and introduced palatable annual grassland
forage species. Areas of invasive plants will require proper management in the future. Annual grasslands of
the ranch do provide good livestock forage. Small concentrations of purple needlegrass were observed but are
limited in extent. Grazing management is essential to help control the invasive thistles.
In recent years, descriptions of rangeland conditions have focused on evaluating rangeland/habitat health, and
residual dry matter observations. These factors are dependent on long-term stewardship management and
climatic conditions and take into account the health of all plant communities and not just grasslands.
Rangeland and habitat health indicators have been developed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
for California in 2007 in order to assess departures from normal rangeland and habitat characteristics. Overall
normal rangeland and habitat health maintains or improves soil fertility, reduces erosion and sedimentation,
improves water quality, allows for plant community biodiversity and management, and provides suitable habitat
for wildlife. Rangeland and habitat health evaluations include the following soil, water, and vegetation indicators
as classified from normal to extreme conditions: See Appendix B for a more detailed definition of the 2007
revised Indicators.
INDICATORS NORMAL TO EXTREME
Rills No recent formation to Severe and well defined.
Water Flow Patterns Minimal soil erosion to Active flow erosion
Soil Pedestalling Minimal pedestalling to Rocks and plants pedestalled
Bare Ground Small bare areas to Large bare areas that are connected
Gullying Natural stable channels to Active head cuts/down cutting
Wind Erosion/ None to infrequent to Extensive wind scouring/deposits
Deposition
Litter Movement Uniform Distribution to Concentrated Movement
Soil Surface Stability Organic Matter to Loose powder
Soil Surface Loss Normal top soil per soil type to No top soil present
Plant Types/Runoff Controlled by vegetation to Vegetation increases runoff
Soil Compaction Trails/water troughs to Most of site
Plant Community Closely matches historic to Climax community decreasing
Changes climax community mix of with invasive plants dominant
annual and native perennial plants
Attachment 6
39 Sage Associates
Plant Mortality/Decadence Uncommon to Common over site/severe stress
Litter Amount Common for climate to Absent
Plant Growth Growth exceeds 80% of to Growth less than 20% of
AnnualProduction potential production potential production
Invasive Plants Not present or expected to Dominate the site
Perennial Plant Seed and tiller reproduction to Severe reduction in seed and
Reproduction are common tiller production
During rangeland/habitat health studies the above Indicators are evaluated in categories that range from
normal with none to slight deviations from normal, to not normal with extreme deviations from normal. The
above table and Appendix B gives the range from normal to extreme.
Other than the invasive plants, the vast majority of the ranch has normal or near normal rangeland and habitat
health based on the assessment of the rangeland/habitat health Indicators and the comparison with the Soil
Survey (1961, and 1969) for baseline conditions of the various Range Sites within the ranch. Coyote brush
encroachment is limited to one old hay meadow (Photo 22) where an old hay rake was found covered with
coyote brush and poison oak. Management of the invasive plants will be a challenge because of their
widespread proliferation but grazing is essential to aid in their control. Areas of thistles reduce rangeland
health from Near Normal to Extreme depending on the concentration.
Residual dry matter (RDM) is a measure of the amount of dry vegetation left on the ground, typically measured
in the end of the summer or fall, prior to rainfall. Appropriate levels of RDM strive to minimize thatch, which
can inhibit new plant growth, while maintaining adequate levels of vegetation to prohibit soil erosion. UCCE
(2003), and USDA NRCS (2007) recommended minimum residual dry matter of about 600 to 1,000 pounds
per acre for slopes up to 30 percent and about 1,200 pounds per acre is recommended for slopes greater than
30 percent. These RDM levels correspond to an average minimum of two to about five inches of stubble
height. USDA NRCS residual dry matter material includes palatable forage and ground litter and stalks that
may not be palatable so pounds per acre weights may be slightly higher in grasslands than for the UCCE
recommended minimum heights. UCCE recommended minimums include the amount of palatable residual dry
matter required to maintain a sustainable moderate level of grazing (i.e. where residual forage can average
about two to five inches in height with higher growth patchy areas and is sufficient to prevent erosion, and to
provide a seed crop), per average Soil Survey slope categories as recommended by the University of
California Cooperative Extension (1982 and 2003) for annual grasses in coastal rainfall areas.
Estimates of pounds per acre of RDM are obtained by fall clippings of one square foot of palatable dry forage,
weighing in grams, and multiplying by 100 to achieve the pounds per acre of RDM. Visual estimates of RDM
can also be made whereby about four inches of RDM equates to about 1,000 pounds per acre.
3.3.4 Livestock Facilities
Livestock facilities include old corrals (Photos 11 and 13). A horse arena (Photo 12) is currently used for horse
training.
3.3.5 Livestock Fencing
Livestock-tight perimeter fencing and natural barriers appears to be adequate at this time. The small
pastures/holding fields near the house and along the driveway require fence and gate repair to remain
serviceable (Photo 11).
The perimeter fence that bisects Knuedler Lake (Photo 28) has not been maintained for a number of years
and cattle access both sides of the lake at this time.
Attachment 6
40 Sage Associates
Natural slope, rock, topographic, and brush barriers have been historically utilized to contain cattle on the
ranch. The brush barriers would be ineffective if wildfire should burn the boundaries of the grassland areas.
3.3.6 Livestock Water Sources
Livestock water sources are inadequate at this time because of their poor distribution. Improved springs
supply and four water trough locations for the holding fields (Photos 11, 12, 13, and 14). Mindego Lake,
Knuedler Lake, stockponds, and springs provide other water sources (Photos 16, 22, and 28).
Livestock water sources are shown on the Figure 7 map in Section 5.
Water troughs consist of steel or aluminum with automatic float valves or hoses. Gravel pads and wildlife
escape ramps are absent at the troughs. These water troughs are maintained and functional at this time.
Developed springs near the corrals and houses are boxed and fenced and were overflowing the water tanks at
the time of the field assessment.
An improved water supply and distribution system is needed in order to assure adequate livestock water and
grazing distribution, and to improve water quality for cattle and wildlife.
3.4 Existing Rangeland Road Access and Maintenance
The main ranch access road is a well-maintained gravel-entrance road. Other ranch roads are infrequently
maintained dirt and are minimally graded, or have good vegetative cover to reduce road-related runoff and
erosion (Photos 19). The access road below the corrals requires gully maintenance (Photos 15 and 18).
Primary roads are shown on Figures 2 and 7. Some old roads on the ranch are no longer maintained such as
the road west of the cabin in the woodland above Mindego Lake (Photo 17), the road west of the ranch
entrance (Photo 1), and the road to Mindego Creek (Photo 21).
4.0 EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCE CONDITIONS
4.1 Natural Resources
Natural resources of the ranch are described more completely in the 2002 LSA Resource Assessment and
MROSD vegetation types (2008). This section of the plan therefore necessarily focuses on the natural
resources that are adjacent to, or may be directly affected by grazing operations.
4.1.1 Vegetation Communities
Vegetation communities shown for the ranch on the Figure 6 Vegetation Map include the following:
Mixed Broadleaf Hardwoods such as California Bay, Tanoak, and Madrone – about 114 acres.
Douglas Fir and Coast Redwood – about 418 acres.
Coast Live Oak Series – about 61 acres
California Buckeye Series – about 15 acres.
Mixed chaparral – about 10 acres.
Coyote Brush (mesic to xeric) – about 63 acres.
Poison Oak Series – about 5 acres.
Weedy Ruderal – about 13 acres.
California Annual Grasslands – about 308 acres.
Yellow Star Thistle – about 13 acres.
There are also about 6 acres of built-up land and 7 acres of water.
The vegetation communities that may be affected by grazing operations include the following:
Attachment 6
41 Sage Associates
California Annual Grassland-Weedy Ruderal
Grazing areas of the ranch are primarily included in the California annual grassland Yellow star thistle, Weedy
ruderal, and Coyote Brush plant communities but may also include small concentrations of native
bunchgrasses and other endemic plants. Weedy ruderal contains concentrations of Harding grass (Phalaris
aquatica), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus) and various thistles that are described in Section 4.2.
Non-native annual grasses observed included:
• Wild oats (Avena barbata)
• Soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus)
• Ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus)
• Rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima)
• Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marianum)
• Filaree (Erodium spp)
• Burclover (Medicago polymorpha)
• Clover (Trifolium ssp)
• Red brome (Bromus madritensis)
• Purple false brome (Brachypodium distachyon)
• Vetch (Vicia ssp)
• Ryegrass (Lolium spp)
Native plants observed included:
• Purple needlegrass (Nasella pulchra)
• Blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus)
• Creeping wildrye (Leymes triticoides)
• Rushes (Juncus spp)
• Sedges (Carex ssp)
Attachment 6
42 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
43 Sage Associates
Coastal Brush Mesic to Xeric
Coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) associated with this community would typically occur in various densities
within many of the rangeland areas. Without wildland fire this community will eventually become the
predominate plant community in an otherwise grassland assemblage. Occurrences of coyote brush on the
ranch is limited to one old hay meadow (Photo 22) and steeper slopes on the south side of the ranch that do
not produce grass due to the shallow soils.
Chaparral, Coast Live Oak, Buckeye, Mixed Broadleaf Hardwoods, Douglas Fir, Coast Redwood
These communities are usually found at the edges of the rangeland grasses and extend into the canyons and
drainages of the ranch. These areas are unsuitable for livestock grazing due to steep slopes, dense canopy
cover, limited livestock access, and a lack of palatable forage but are valuable habitats for wildlife.
One area of Douglas Fir/Coast Redwood is heavily trailed above Mindego Lake by cattle on the southwest side
of the ranch accessing the lake for water. Cattle also use extensively use the south and west shore of the lake
and the spring area that feeds the lake on the south.
Special Status Plant Species
LSA (2002) reported that suitable habitat was present on the site for Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis),
Ben Lomand buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum var decurrens), Wooly-headed Lessingia (Lessingis hololeuca),
Robust monardella (Monardella villosa ssp globosa), and Dudley’s lousewort (Pedicularus dudleyi). These
species are not federally or state listed but are listed as species of concern by the California Native Plant
Society and have not been actually observed on the ranch. The plants may occur predominately in forest,
woodland, and chaparral habitats that are minimally affected by cattle grazing.
4.1.2 Wildlife
The vegetative communities provide foraging, nesting, breeding and protection for a variety of birds,
mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish and insects.
The well-vegetated drainages provide important wildlife migration corridors-if not too brushy-offering protective
cover through otherwise adjacent open rangelands. The mature trees are particularly valuable to wildlife
where there is both dense understory and canopy that provides cover and shelter for many species.
Wildlife of the Grasslands and Shrublands
Several species of birds rely on open expanses of grasslands for hunting and foraging, including the northern
harrier, red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, American kestrel, great horned owl, and common barn owl.
Grasslands that are bordered by woodlands are particularly important for raptors, because the birds can use
the large trees as “hawking” sites to observe the activities of prey within nearby grassland habitats. California
toad and pacific newt may occur in the grasslands seasonally. Western skink, western fence lizard, California
alligator lizard, common kingsnake, western rattlesnake and gopher snake are the most common species
expected to frequent grasslands. Mammals expected to use the grasslands include California ground squirrel,
Botta's pocket gopher, western harvest house, and California vole. Mammalian predators, including coyote,
long-tailed weasel, and badger depend on grasslands for foraging and denning sites. Grasslands are an
important foraging habitat for mule deer and for mountain lions that prey on deer. Grasslands that are
bordered by woodlands or dense brush are excellent foraging areas for small mammals such as the pallid bat,
cottontail and brush rabbits, and mice.
Attachment 6
44 Sage Associates
Wildlife observed during the field assessments at Mindego Lake included great blue herons, American coots,
mallard ducks, domestic swan, bullfrogs, coast range newts, belted kingfishers, and kildeer. A common garter
snake was observed at Knuedler Lake. Other wildlife observed included three mule deer, barn swallows, red-
tailed hawks, common crows, ravens, Cooper’s hawk, western bluebirds, Stellar’s jays, scrub jays, California
quail, and Anna’s hummingbird.
Special Status Wildlife Species
Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) a federally listed threatened species may occur in Mindego Creek and
Alpine Creek (LSA, 2002) away from the cattle grazing areas. Mindego Creek is in a steep-sided canyon that
is heavily wooded and inaccessible to cattle (Photo 21).
California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) a federally listed threatened species and the San Francisco
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) a federally and state listed endangered species have suitable
habitat present on the ranch (LSA, 2002). Red-legged frogs frequent perennial stock ponds and have been
observed to co-exist with cattle grazing where cattle help to remove some of the vegetation from pond areas
(Bush, 2006; DiDonato, 2007). Sage Associates field observations of stockponds in cattle grazing areas
indicate that red-legged frogs and garter snakes thrive if bullfrogs Rana catesbeiana) are absent.
4.2 Invasive and or Noxious Species
Most of the invasive and or noxious species include both plants and animals that were introduced from
Europe, Asia, or Africa and have since escaped into the rangeland, and wildland areas. They can disrupt
grazing and agricultural activities and can crowd out native plants and animals, degrade wildlife habitat, and
make areas more susceptible to flooding and erosion. The San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner’s
Office has up to date information on these species and can be helpful in providing information on new species
that may be encountered on the preserve in the future and are not included in this plan at this time.
The most prolific invasive noxious plants that were found within the rangeland areas of the ranch today include
the following: Wooly distaff thistle (Carthamus lanatus), Purple-star thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa), Yellow-star
thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Milk thistle (Silybum marianum), Poison hemlock
(Conium maculatum), Spiny clotbur/Spanish thistle (Xanthium ssp), Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), and
Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus). Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramorum) is also discussed below.
Purple star thistle, yellow star thistle, Italian thistle, and Bull thistle are listed as weeds of concern by the San
Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner (2007).
Coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) a native shrub, also was observed to be invading one meadow in the annual
grasslands of the ranch and will be discussed below.
The MROSD is currently involved in management of many of the invasive noxious species including the
various thistles in other areas that they manage. Spot herbicide applications are acceptable but only by
certified applicators per San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office regulations. A brief description
of the above plant species are included below with treatment practices discussed in Section 5.
Wooly distaff thistle: Native to the Mediterranean, this thistle is an aggressive rangeland pest that displaces
forage plants and makes access difficult. The thistle has spiny flower heads, and the leaves have long, stout
marginal spine and may attains heights of more than four feet. A winter annual that germinates in the fall and
matures to produce seed in the following summer.
Identified around the springs and mostly on hillsides in the southern area of the ranch.
Purple star thistle: A noxious invasive weed that severely degrades rangelands. The thistle typically grows as a
biennial, completing its life cycle in two years. Mature plants are covered with stout, sharp spines. Purple
starthistle poses a dual risk for livestock ranchers; it degrades forage quality by displacing palatable plants and
Attachment 6
45 Sage Associates
by hindering or blocking access to grazing areas. Its sharp spines can also injure eyes, noses, and mouths of
grazing animals and wildlife.
The spiny plant can achieve heights of one to 4 feet with purple colored spines and flower heads.
Reproduction is by prolific seed production which is distributed by wind, water, animals, vehicles, and
contaminated feed or seed. The plant prefers deep fertile soil, and disturbed areas, and often grows in
bottomland areas and along roads.
Purple star thistle can be found primarily along the edges and centerline of roads, and in some disturbed areas
such as along stockpond edges and in rangeland areas. Heaviest concentrations are where contaminated hay
was fed along roads, fencelines, and near corrals. This plant is found scattered over nearly all of the
rangeland areas of the ranch.
Yellow star thistle: Is also a noxious invasive weed that severely degrades rangeland and farmland. The plant
was introduced into California in the mid-1800s and now infests about 10 million acres of the state. The plant
is toxic to horses, and its spines may cause mechanical injuries to grazing or browsing animals. Dense stands
can impede or block animal movement and reduce quantity and quality of rangeland forage. Because it grows
in the summer and achieves high densities, it threatens the survival of native summer-active plants.
The thistle can achieve heights of from one to 4 feet and is also a prolific seed producer. Contaminated hay,
and old farm fields are commonly the source of yellow star thistle, and disturbed soil areas are also especially
susceptible to thistle infestation.
Mostly concentrated in the mapped areas of Figure 6 near Mindego Lake and the corrals.
Bull thistle: A biennial thistle originally from the Europe, western Asia and North Africa, Bull thistle currently is
most common in coastal grasslands, and disturbed pasture areas and along roadsides. Its basal rosettes
blanket the ground, severely reducing the establishment of other plants. Bull thistle reproduces from seed
only after fall rains, with flowering peaking in July and early August. Seeds released are wind-dispersed, and
may remain dormant in the soil for several years. Soil and vegetation disturbance, and drought favor an
increase in the thistle.
Found scattered under oaks and along graded roadsides.
Milk thistle: Milk thistle can be an annual, winter annual or biennial herb, native to the Mediterranean region.
It is a pioneer species that colonizes disturbed areas, including grazed areas under oak trees and along
riparian corridors. Dense stands out-compete native plants as well as forage for livestock and wildlife. The
rosettes may reach up to three feet in diameter, effectively shading out other plants. Thick infestations
hamper the movement of wildlife and livestock, frequently limiting access to water. Milk thistle accumulates
nitrate, making it lethal to livestock that eat the plant. Seeds remain viable for nine years; and older seeds
have higher germination rates.
Found scattered under oaks and along graded roadsides.
Italian thistle: A winter annual originally from the Mediterranean, Europe, Asia and Africa, Italian thistle
currently is widespread in temperate zones. It is common in the Coast Ranges within oak savannas and
disturbed areas, including grasslands, pastures, rangeland, and roadsides. Italian thistle dominates large
areas and excludes native species, impacting both flora and fauna. Its basal rosettes blanket the ground,
severely reducing the establishment of other plants. Italian thistle reproduces from seed only, flowering from
September through December. Up to 20,000 seeds can be produced by a single plant in one season. Seeds
are wind-dispersed, and may remain dormant in the soil up to 8-10 years. Soil and vegetation disturbance,
and drought favor an increase in Italian thistle.
Found scattered through the grassland and roadside areas.
Attachment 6
46 Sage Associates
Poison hemlock: Native to Europe, North Africa and Asia, poison hemlock has spread throughout the United
States and other countries. It is a biennial, and spreads only by seed. Seeds are dispersed by water, mud,
wind, animal fur, and by humans on clothing, boots, and machinery. Seeds have a very long dispersal period,
ranging from June through February. The seeds can germinate in a wide range of soil, moisture and
temperature conditions, and can remain viable in the soil for up to three years. Poison hemlock spreads
quickly after the rainy season in areas cleared or disturbed. It is highly competitive and prevents the
establishment of native plants by over-shading; it does not appear to be allelopathic. It is poisonous to
vertebrates, causing death primarily by respiratory paralysis after ingestion (within 2-3 hours in livestock).
Poison hemlock occurs commonly adjacent to riparian woodlands, moist areas, roadsides, and encroaches
into some of the grassland areas.
Harding grass: A waist-high coarse perennial grass with grayish to bluish green leaves. Flowering heads are
dense spike-like and two to five inches long. Native to the Mediterranean region it was introduced for its value
as livestock forage and has since spread beyond introduced areas by seeds and will out compete other native
perennial grasses.
Found near the ranch entrance and mapped in Figure 6.
Coyote bush: A dominant component of the coastal sage scrub plant community. Coyote bush is a native
bright green evergreen shrub with whitish or yellowish disk-shaped flowers that bloom in the fall. The plant has
a low browse value for cattle but does provide forage variety and Vitamin A on dry grass rangeland where it is
browsed in the summer and fall (Sampson, 1963).
Coyote bush was observed to be encroaching into the old hay field grassland area (Photo 22).
French broom: An invasive plant with yellow flowers was observed in a small area above Mindego Creek on
the north side of the ranch.
Sudden Oak Death (SOD): Sudden oak death is caused by Phytophthora ramorum a fungus. Tanoak, coast
live oak, and black oak appear to be most susceptible to the fungus. Crown death with or without the formation
of reddish sappy lesions is commonly observed. Lab tests are needed to determine if sudden oak death did
actually occur but we have found such tests to be inconclusive in areas of Monterey County. Sudden oak
death has been reported by the San Mateo county Agricultural Commissioner to be found along Skyline
Boulevard.
Not observed on the ranch, though several old dead oak trees were found above Mindego Creek.
An invasive animal species that may affect rangeland areas, spring, seeps, and stockponds, is the feral pig
(Sus scrofa).
Feral pig: The feral pigs were introduced into California by the Spanish in the 1500’s. Pigs may inhabit oak and
other woodlands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland habitats, although they seem to prefer oak
woodlands and riparian habitats. Pigs are highly adaptable, reproduce rapidly, and lack effective predators.
Potential predators of feral pigs include mountain lion, bobcat, and coyote all species present within the
properties
Feral pigs reach sexual maturity at age 6-8 months, and may breed year-round; most females have two litters
per year. Litter sizes average 5 piglets, with a high mortality rate (70-90%). It should be noted that even with
this mortality rate, an average of 5 piglets per litter and two litters per year would result in a 33% annual
population increase. Average life span is about 10 months, with some individuals surviving 5-6 years.
Pigs are opportunistic omnivores that tend to exploit seasonally available food resources. They will eat
berries, insects, roots, bulbs, soil grubs, and even small vertebrates, such as birds, snakes, mammals, lizards
and bird eggs. They will eat carrion if available. Pigs feed heavily in oak woodlands on the mast crop, and
Attachment 6
47 Sage Associates
cause extensive ground disturbance through there rooting foraging behavior. Feral pigs reduce the
recruitment of oak trees by direct consumption of acorns and indirectly by uprooting oak seedlings. The pigs
also disrupt the growth of other native plants. In-stream habitats, riparian woodlands, and oak woodlands can
be heavily degraded by the trampling, rooting, foraging, and wallowing behaviors of feral pigs. Pigs directly
compete with mule deer, wild turkey and black bears for acorns, a critically important seasonal food source.
Pigs cause extensive damage to native plants and wildlife, rangelands, agricultural crops, and landscaping.
They degrade natural wetland habitats and increase erosion and sedimentation within riparian zones. Feral
pigs may also transmit diseases to domestic livestock, including swine brucellosis, trichinosis, foot and mouth
disease, African swine fever, pseudorabies, leptospirosis., and may serve as a reservoir for bovine
tuberculosis.
Feral pigs wallows were observed in the spring area of Photo 22 in the old hay meadow on the north side of
the ranch.
Attachment 6
48 Sage Associates
5.0 GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 Implementation of the Plan
The management of MROSD grasslands through the utilization of livestock grazing will promote grassland bio-
diversity through the implementation Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan.
A crucial part of grazing management is adaptive management; that is, management that responds to regional
markets, industry health, and production trends that in turn influence a lessee’s fiscal responsibility.
Management can include decisions regarding livestock markets, livestock trends, pests, climate changes,
energy costs, resource constraints, and water resource uses. As livestock management and resource
management science progresses, unforeseen future management changes can be made that consider such
resources through applying the University of California Cooperative Extension and Natural Resource
Conservation Service conservation current and future management recommendations.
5.2 Grazing Conservation Management Practice Components
Conservation management practices components are to be implemented for all grazing areas, and are
included specifically to apply to Livestock and Wildlife Water Development; Livestock and Wildlife Fencing
Development; Land Management; Roads and Infrastructure Maintenance; and Wildlife, Water Quality, and
Habitat Management. Table 2 provides an “at a glance” summary of the selected conservation management
practices that are discussed in the following sections.
NRCS, UCCE, and California Construction Handbook construction specifications and conservation
management practice standards are to be considered as guidelines as applicable in this plan, and updated
versions are readily available from the District or those agencies. These specifications and practices to be
referenced include: Prescribed Grazing; Water Well, Water Pipelines, Water Troughs or Tanks for livestock
and wildlife water; Spring Development; Road, Stockpond, and Gully Maintenance items such as Rock Rip
Rap, Earth Dike Water Bar Diversions, Slope Drains, Outlet and Inlet Protection for culverts, and Straw Bale
Barrier placement.
Many of the proposed conservation management practices have already been implemented by MROSD on
other lands under their care. These practices help to reduce erosion and sedimentation, improve water quality,
and protect natural resources.
The site-specific proposed conservation management practices often referred to as best management
practices in this plan are consistent with those local and regional resource and livestock management
practices that are encouraged by various local, state and federal agencies including but not limited to the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, California EPA, California Department of Fish and Game,
University of California Cooperative Extension, the Agricultural Commissioner's Office for San Mateo County,
Natural Resource Conservation Service, Resource Conservation Districts, Bureau of Land Management, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
5.2.1 Grazing Management
The livestock grazing management and implementation of the conservation management components is the
responsibility of MROSD, which will seek the complete cooperation of the grazing lessee. The selection of a
future lessee that will work with MROSD on implementing the requirements of this plan is crucial. Longevity of
the lessee is especially important; the lease terms are planned be for a five-year increment with subsequent
five-year renewal options.
5.2.1.1 Proposed Rangeland Conservation Management
Practices
Attachment 6
49 Sage Associates
The application of conservation management practices are an integral part of the long-term implementation of
the grazing management plan. These conservation management practices are applicable to any domestic
grazing animal(s) on the properties now and in the future including, but not limited to, horses, cattle, sheep,
and goats.
Livestock Considerations:
The ultimate choice of livestock type in part depends on the livestock that are being grazed in the area that
would be available for MROSD grasslands. Available operators may have one or more types of livestock in
need of forage; common species and breeds and their attributes are described below.
• Cattle – English breeds such as Angus, Charolais, Hereford, Holstein, or using
English breed cross breeds would be favorable over less complacent animals such as Mexican steers or
Brahma that range more vigorously and are more apt to test fences and natural barriers. Public safety and
predation is another issue in considering bulls, or cows with newborn calves. Ideally, gentle cow/calves, mid-
weight heifers or steers, dry cows, or dairy replacement heifers would be favored in many cases depending on
distribution.
Coyote and feral dog predation has been identified as potential problems on the ranch along with steep
slopes, less than ideal water, and poor access. A stocker operation, or cows with older calves may therefore
be favored for this ranch.
• Sheep – are grazers that are still utilized in the county. Sheep, without herding, may graze grass closer than
cattle. Sheep with herding would be ideal for distribution, however, sheep are more susceptible to predators
and dogs and would need to be confined at night.
• Goats – are browsers, similar to deer, and are very effective at stripping vegetation from shrubs. Goats
would require day herding to avoid heavy grazing, and would also need to be penned at night. Goats would be
most effective at browsing on mustard, thistle, and coyote bush but would tend to leave branches and stalks.
• Horses – are more opportunistic grazers and will browse on shrubs. Horses are least favored for MROSD
grasslands because of solid shod hoof impacts that compact soil (versus an unshod cloven-hoofed animal,
trailing tendencies, dentition that can uproot or damage plants, and safety since children are attracted to
horses that can, kick, bite, or trample. Equestrian trail uses are fine with horses since grazing would not be
substantial.
• Other – this may include future possibilities such as llamas that would be acceptable as long as performance
standards are met if consistent with MROSD guidelines. Llamas grazed with cattle or sheep can act as an
effective deterrent to coyote or feral dog predation due to the llama’s aggressive behavior towards those
predators.
Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Management:
Livestock grazing and rangeland management shall be based on an approximation of the ranch carrying
capacity whereby general rangeland dry matter productivity averages for the property has been determined
from the NRCS Soil Surveys, and UCCE range clippings and research. Adherence to specified performance
standards shall determine the actual operational carrying capacity that may vary from year to year based on
climatic conditions and rotation.
The University of California grazing management courses emphasizes that overgrazing is a function of time
and uniformity of utilization is a function of stock density. High stock density for short periods of time results in
more uniform utilization-less picking and choosing-by cattle. Higher stock density for shorter periods of time
increases competition for feed and causes cattle to be less selective about what they graze.
Attachment 6
50 Sage Associates
Overgrazing occurs when animals remain in a pasture too long so that regrowth gets regrazed or when cattle
return to a pasture too soon before plants have recovered from the previous grazing. Light stocking combined
with too much time in a pasture leads to a selection of more palatable plants where less palatable plants are
left ungrazed. The longer plants remain ungrazed, the more decadent, coarser, and less digestible they
become.
Grazing timing and rotation are based on management goals. For this plan, the major goals are too manage
the grassland bio-diversity by properly grazing the annual grasses that may lead to enhancing any perennial
grass composition and reducing thistle concentrations in the future, and the reduction of fuel loads in the event
of a wildland fire. An additional short term goal is the reduction of weeds that impact forage value, particularly
purple star and distaff thistles.
Seasonal or year-round cattle grazing would be feasible for the ranch.. The below listed challenges should be
taken into consideration when selecting a grazing season:
1) Limited livestock water would be in less demand than in the summer;
2) Larger numbers of cattle could be grazed on the north and south pastures that would more readily utilize
the annual grasses, the Harding grass, and the thistles;
3) Annual grass growth would be started on the steep southerly slopes before grazing would commence in
order to reduce erosion potential;
4) Perennial grasses would be utilized less and may increase in abundance; and
5) Less conflict with summer and fall recreational uses of the ranch.
Cattle coming onto the ranch will be off-loaded at the arena corrals and water trough. The cattle shall be fed
for 24 hours in the corrals (for weed control from manure) and then rotated into the north and south side
pastures and holding fields. To minimize introduction of noxious weeds, only certified weed-free and/or locally
sourced hay shall be fed and only at the corrals. The holding fields will also be grazed but may be used for
holding animals prior to shipping as long as the RDM standards are met. Because of the abundance of
thistles, at this time it is proposed that the north and south pastures, and the holding fields be continuously
grazed into June or possibly July depending on forage production, so that the thistles are constantly under
grazing pressure. A larger number of cattle will be in the north pasture at any one time because of the
pastures larger area.
Year-long rest of any pasture is not recommended, unless burned, because of the already existing ample seed
supply and because of the tendency of invasive plants such as thistle, and coyote bush to expand without
grazing pressure. Beginning each December, the RDM must at least meet minimum performance standards in
the pastures or four inches of green grass growth must be present in the pastures.
The stocking rates of the pastures will vary since the pastures are not equal in size, water availability, or
forage quality or productivity.
Total carrying capacity estimates for the 330 acres of grassland on the ranch are about 330 animal unit
months or about 27 animal units per year or 66 animal units for five months. Average weight 500-
pound stocker steers or heifers grazing for five months would equate to about 130 head. These are
estimates, and first year stocking in a normal rainfall pattern should be flexible. Stocking intensity may
require a downward or upward adjustment depending on rainfall amounts and distribution and
temperatures as the grazing season progresses. The lessee shall be able to make necessary stocking
adjustment during the grazing season in order to achieve the performance standards as closely as
possible as well as to control thistle growth.
Performance standards are included below per average slope:
Attachment 6
51 Sage Associates
0 to 30% slopes: an average minimum of two inches to three inches of residual dry matter – approximately an
average of 600 – 1,000 pounds per acre per NRCS and UCCE definition. Description: In some areas
rangeland will show evidence of extensive grazing. Residual vegetation is patchy with some areas grazed to
less than one inch and other areas with greater vegetation remaining. Bare ground showing evidence of
pocket gopher activity may exist. Golf ball objects are clearly visible at a distance of 10 feet and mostly visible
at a distance of 20 feet.
Greater than 30% slopes: an average minimum of three to four inches of residual dry matter – approximately
an average of 1,000 - 1,200 pounds per acre per NRCS and UCCE definition. Description: In some areas
rangeland will typically show clear evidence of grazing. Seed stalks may be heavily utilized or trampled.
Considerable ground cover and leaf litter may be present in some areas. Some bare soil will be apparent
including pocket gopher activity, visible from a distance of 20 feet. Many golf ball sized objects are partially
visible at a distance of 10 feet, and some may be barely visible at a distance of 20 feet.
Commonly observed key rangeland forage species within the pastures grassland areas include soft chess,
annual rye, ripgut brome, filaree, rose clover, bur clover, and wild oats.
Areas that are to be considered exempt from the above performance standards include the following:
• Pastures that are burned, roads, tanks and unfenced pond sites, and rock outcrops.
• Areas within 100-yards of watering troughs, water tanks, salt and mineral licks, holding fields/traps, animal
handling corrals, or where animals may naturally congregate due to topography or weather.
• Areas of low fertility due to insufficient soil depth or quality, sand, and steep slopes regardless of grazing
pressure.
• Areas with extensive tree or shrub canopy cover.
• Areas subject to periodic insect infestations such as from grasshoppers and crickets.
• Areas subject to feral pig ground damage, or other wild animal use and disturbance.
Seasonal climatic data including rainfall and distribution, prolonged drought of two or more years, flooding, and
high and low temperatures shall be included in evaluating the performance standards in the pasture areas. For
example, during drought conditions 50% of unfavorable year grassland production within the NRCS Range
Sites should be managed to remain as residual dry matter.
The above grazing management recommendations are consistent with UCCE, NRCS, RWQCB, and BLM
grazing management objectives or standards. The above standards are at a recommended "moderate" level
of grazing which has been recommended for sustainable livestock performance and range protection (Jensen,
2000). Studies by Holechek and Galt (2000) also corroborate that specific levels of residual vegetation levels
needed for range protection are utilized for the California annual grassland type.
• Salt locations are based on the National Range Handbook standards that require salt locations to be no more
than 1/2 mile apart on rough rangeland. Upland swales, ridgetops and livestock trail intersections away from
water sources and away from public-used trails and roads shall be utilized for the placement of salt. Cattle will
typically go from salt to forage to water so to make the most of the forage utilization and to improve grazing
distribution, salt and supplements shall be placed away from water sources. To improve RDM distribution and
resource management, salt blocks shall be placed at least 1/8 mile away from accessible water sources and
public access roads and trails. Salt locations should be moved periodically to further improved forage
utilization and so as not to over utilize any given area.
Attachment 6
52 Sage Associates
• Supplemental feeding is not allowed, except in the following circumstances: 1) Distribution of supplements
(vitamins, minerals, protein) to aid in the achievement of District resource management goals and livestock
movement and 2) feeding in the corral areas when cattle are off loaded and held or shipped from the
premises. As discussed above, any hay shall be locally sourced and/or certified weed free.
5.2.1.2 Rangeland Infrastructure Requirements
Prior to the beginning of the grazing season, and assessment of infrastructure and range condition is
important because of wear and tear or other changes during the off season. A site inspection shall be
conducted by MROSD and the grazing lessee in prior to the grazing season to assess rangeland RDM
conditions, green feed growth, and infrastructure. (see also Monitoring, section 6).
Upon determining the necessary upgrades in a given year, off season infrastructure repairs shall be completed
by MROSD prior to commencement of the grazing season or use of a particular area. During the grazing
season, fencing and water infrastructure maintenance and repairs shall be the responsibility of the lessee.
Work above and beyond upkeep of infrastructure must be previously approved by MROSD, and is addressed
as “Rent credit for performance of work” in the lease.
Determining the locations of livestock and wildlife water development and livestock and wildlife fencing
modifications were based on the April and May 2008 field assessments. These proposed new locations are
shown on Figure 7. Specific locations are to be determined in the field. Stella Cousins was shown many of
these locations. The infrastructure improvements are proposed to aid in the operational management of
livestock, and rangeland and natural resources. Existing troughs are comprised of variable sizes and materials
and may need to be repaired or replaced in the future. All replacement troughs shall be placed on gravel pads.
Wildlife escape ramps shall be installed on all troughs.
Livestock and Wildlife Water Development:
Livestock water facility development was generally designed based on the National Range Handbook
standards that require the following:
- A clean, dependable water supply;
- Adequate size to allow livestock to water within a two hour period;
- Spacing of watering areas 1/4 to 1/2 mile in rough terrain; and
- A 10-20 gallon per day requirement per a 1,000 pound animal.
Studies by U.C. Cooperative Extension have shown that when higher quality trough water is available instead
of ponds, calves often weigh an extra 50 pounds at weaning. Yearling steers can gain an extra three-tenths to
four-tenths of a pound per day (Western Livestock Journal, 2001). Historic research and experience has
shown that stock water developments do divert livestock use, improving grazing distribution and forage
management flexibility. For example, having clean trough water available away from streams diverted cattle
use from those areas. As long as the grass was green on the uplands, the majority of the cattle stayed on the
hillsides and came down only to water and loaf. After the upland grass dried, use of the riparian areas
increased, however, cattle still used water troughs and loafed near the troughs away from the riparian areas
(Chamberlain and Doverspike, 2001). Water development combined with existing pasture cross fencing,
benefits management, livestock, wildlife, and wetland habitats positively.
Proposed water trough improvement replacements are dispersed along ridgelines and swales, and to the
extent possible, away from public access roads and trails, that will aid in the distribution of cattle and will
improve the existing water supply. Troughs are also located away from existing natural water sources so as to
benefit wildlife, to reduce siltation, and to improve water quality and the potential for wetland habitat
management. The MROSD shall install wildlife-friendly water troughs-both existing and proposed troughs-
whereby a wooden, concrete, rock, or mesh “escape ramp” is installed inside the trough to allow trapped birds
and mammals to not drown. Water quality is thereby also improved for livestock and wildlife. For flow-through
Attachment 6
53 Sage Associates
water troughs, outlets should be rock or concrete lined to reduce erosion, improve water quality, and provide
water for smaller animals and birds.
New roads should not have to be constructed for any of the proposed waterline, and trough installation.
Waterbar diversions will be required as a conservation management practice on any bulldozer trails
established for access of equipment and materials or on any trenching that may occur on slopes. The new
water trough locations are all accessible by old roads in various states of maintenance. Clearing, limbing, and
spot grading will be necessary to access the water line and trough locations along the old unmaintained roads.
The following water development should be accomplished prior to cattle entry onto the ranch (see Figure 7 for
locations): If not complete or if not started, then graze anyway using the existing water supplies. If a season is
missed, the spread of the invasive thistles will be extreme.
1. Start at the existing water tanks near the ranch entrance (Photo 4) and relocate the poly tank into the
saddle to the west (Photo 5). Install water lines to two new troughs on each side of the fenceline. Leave
a stub in the water line for possible future water troughs and grazing in the Russian Ridge Open Space
Preserve to the east (Photos 2 and 3).
2. Install the water line along the old road to the southern trough (Photo 6)
3. Start at the existing water tank and trough (Photo 14) install an electric booster pump utilizing the
existing electrical service. Install water line up the old road west of the cabin to the grassland ridge.
Install a 10,000 gallon or two 5,000 gallon water tanks and trough (Photo 23). Install water line along
ridge to south to southern water trough location (Photo 25). Portions of the water line may need to be
above ground galvanized pipe due to rock outcrops on the ridge. Probably best to stay on the west side
of the ridge at the tree dripline.
4. Maintain existing water troughs as necessary including gravel pads and wildlife escape ramps.
Estimated water related costs*, include the following:
Materials:
Valves/fittings/steel pipes = $1,500
20 tons 1 1/2” gravel or crushed rock = $800
5 – precast concrete troughs 8’x4’x2’ @ $500 = $2,500
Aluminum may be used in less accessible areas,
assumes that all are replaced which may not be
the case.
PVC 1 1/4 inch Schedule 40 pipe – 3,000 feet @ $1.25/foot = $3,750
PVC 3/4 inch Schedule 40 pipe – 5,000 feet @ $0.70/foot = $3,500
2 – 5,000 gallon low profile poly water tanks @ $2,800 = $5,600
1 – electric booster pump = $1,000
____________
Labor: estimate or provided by lessee for lease credit = $10,000
TOTAL = $28 650
NRCS specifications are included in Appendix B as a guide for spring development, water tanks and troughs,
and water line installations.
Existing and any future spring developments that may occur as needed shall be fenced or covered to preclude
livestock and feral pigs. All of the water supply improvements will provide an additional dependable year-
around good water quality water source for livestock and wildlife.
Livestock and Wildlife Fencing Development:
Attachment 6
54 Sage Associates
The following fencing and repairs shall be completed by a cattle lessee and/or the MROSD: See Figure 7 for
general locations.
1. Check all livestock perimeter barriers, and repair all perimeter fencing to the satisfaction of a cattle
lessee and the MROSD. About 1/4 mile of perimeter fencing is no longer usable at Knuedler Lake and
may require replacement if a grazing arrangement is not reached with the adjacent landowner.
2. Repair interior pasture fencing and gates.
3. Establish corrals at a suitable location to allow year round access by grazing tenants while reducing
potential conflicts with recreational uses (Photo 12).
4. Establish drift fencing and gates at two access road locations along ridge north west of Mindego Hill
5. Establish new fence and repair/replace old fence on south/southwest edge of Mindego Lake. This
fence will protect the spring runoff into the lake and the riparian habitat along the south/southwest
shoreline from cattle grazing. Pedestrian gates or “v” creeps shall be established for access at each
end of the fence. Weed eradication will be necessary in this exclusion area.
6. If the old road to Mindego Creek (Photo 21) is reopened for pedestrian access, then a gate and drif t
fence will need to be placed in the approximate location shown in Figure 7 to exclude cattle from
accessing the creek.
Estimated fence related costs*, include the following:
Materials and Labor:
Four strand barbed wire lake, drift fences 1,500 feet @ $4/foot = $6,000
Existing fence repair = $1,000
Seven – 16 foot new steel gates = $3,500
Total = $10,500
Continualgrazing coupled with mowing-invasive plant control, and water and fence development, will improve
management options and ease of the moving of livestock, pasture management, natural resource
management, and riparian management through cattle grazing. RDM standards, water quality, and
rangeland/habitat health will all benefit. Managing the grazing will also reduce existing trampling, trailing, and
soil compaction in the woodland above Mindego Lake.
During the grazing season, fencing and water infrastructure maintenance and repairs shall be the
responsibility of the lessee, as detailed in the lease.
Attachment 6
55 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
56 Sage Associates
5.2.2 Safety and Road Maintenance Requirements
Roads and road infrastructure maintenance are well maintained and are in good condition. In time, roads will
require periodic water bar diversions, culverts, gully repair, and related maintenance. Secondary ranch roads
will be minimally graded and mowed in order to maintain a natural ground cover to help prevent erosion.
These roads may be mowed to reduce fire hazard. Any new culverts will require riprap protection at inlets and
outlets. Gully maintenance may extend to areas that receive access road runoff such as the gully above
Mindego Lake (Photos 15 and 18) that should be stabilized by possibly rerouting the road upslope and
controlling runoff. MROSD must perform or pre-approve all road related maintenance, except in
emergencies, as outlined in the lease.
The following conservation management practices shall be followed on access roads and gullies:
Management Item Mindego Hill Ranch Access Roads Conservation Management Practices
Grading Minimize grading for repairs and maintenance. Allow grass cover to be established and
mowed on most road surfaces. Cant road surface to sheet water.
Erosion Control Install water bars across road slopes, install road drains, install V ditches, and rip rap
outlets. Drainage diversions to reduce sheet washing and rilling of road surfaces shall be
placed at least every 200 feet on roads with gradients greater than eight percent. Maintain
cattle guard by removing sediment and provide clean out.
Dust Control Post speed limits to 5 MPH, maintain cover crop on road, soil seal road surfaces if
necessary. Utilize minimal grading.
Existing Gullies If renewed erosion occurs, place riprap in gully to control erosion.
Straw bales may also be placed in gullies. Willow cuttings may be
planted in wet gullies. Utilize certified weed-free straw bales.
Drainages Do not side-cast material into drainages. Utilize existing drainage crossings or span new
crossings with suitable bridging that does not disturb channel bank or channel bottom. If
culverts are used at smaller drainage crossings, then, provide inlet and outlet protection
with riprap material. Grade drainage crossing only after water flow has ceased.
Reseeding Reseed and mulch cut and fill slopes. Install necessary sand bags, straw bales to retard
erosion until slopes are revegetated. Use certified weed free straw.
Road maintenance shall be the responsibility of the MROSD. As a guide, conservation management practices
for road repair, erosion control and maintenance are available from the District along with the recommended
Conservation Management Practices information.
5.2.3 Natural Resources Management
Adoption of the rangeland management policies described herein will aid in the conservation of the natural
resource habitat conditions throughout the grazing land on the ranch.
Land, Wildlife, Water Quality, and Habitat Management
Plant communities and wildlife habitats throughout the ranch will benefit from rangeland management
practices, allowing the continued natural growth of native plant communities, and the concomitant
improvement of wildlife habitat values and invasive plant management. Benefits to the natural resources of the
ranch through grazing and rangeland management will result from measures that will improve water quality in
the springs and lakes, increase slope stability, reduce sedimentation, and reduce soil compaction and trailing.
Attachment 6
57 Sage Associates
5.2.3.1 Vegetation
Annual grassland plant communities will benefit from suggested removal of invasive, native and non-native
plants, which presently can out-compete native, plants and encroach into grassland areas. Livestock
management practices will continue to result in managed rangeland habitat conditions, allowing native plants
to expand their abundance and plant communities to expand their diversity and areal extent.
Grassland/Coastal Scrub Habitats
Grasslands, and coastal scrub, communities occur on uplands and will be managed, where applicable, by the
proposed prescribed grazing practices that have been previously discussed.
Grasslands will be grazed through improved rotational pasture grazing and timing that results in achieving, at
a minimum, the RDM performance standards, concomitant with maintaining overall rangeland health.
Performance standards and improved rotation, will favor grassland bio-diversity.
Coastal scrub will continue to flourish since livestock and wildlife frequent the edge areas and deer actively
browse well into the interior of the coastal scrub. Deer and cattle browsing encourages new plant growth and
sunlight within the community. Coyote bush despite livestock and wildlife browsing, are encroaching upon
areas of annual and perennial grasslands. One coastal scrub area will require mechanical management
through mowing in order to maintain the grasslands and the grassland/coastal scrub edge areas and wildland
mosaics.
Erosion Control Using Native Plants
Bio-remediation using the native plants may be used to restore the eroded gully near Mindego Lake, and
roadwork, as needed.
Prescribed Burn Management
This section is included as a possible future management tool, however, at this time no specific areas would
require burning.
The use of fire as a fuel management tool on gently to moderately sloping areas of coyote bush dominated
coastal scrub and weedy ruderal areas, should increase upland water infiltration and help in fuel management.
Prescribed burning appears to be less effective at controlling coyote bush because of its high moisture content
in the green leaves. Where fire has been used in the coast ranges, a combination of a follow-up Roundup
herbicide treatment for two consecutive years after the prescribed burning approximately 90 percent control is
achieved with the combination burning and herbicide treatments (Hill-El Sur Ranch, pers. comm. 2006).
Therefore, any prescribed burning of coyote bush must be in the fall when fires would burn hotter and should
be over a pilot area to determine effectiveness.
Brush management techniques for improving cattle and wildlife forage will be limited to crushing and/or
burning of coyote bush dominated coastal scrub in areas on average slopes of less than 30 percent where
deeper soil profiles typically occur. Typical vegetation includes coastal sage, coyote bush, and poison oak.
This will prevent increases in surface runoff, erosion and sedimentation during the improvement period.
Additional requirements would include the following: provision of a 50 foot vegetated buffer strip between
drainage courses; riparian vegetation will not be disturbed; high soil erosion areas will be avoided; all cultural
resource areas shall be avoided; equipment will be excluded from drainage channels; burning will leave a
mosaic pattern of burned and unburned vegetation; no spring burning will be allowed due to potential high
runoff, and nesting bird impacts; and in heavy fuel load areas mechanical clearing around trees shall be
completed prior to burning.
Cooperation will be required from MROSD fire units with possible assistance from the California Department of
Forestry (CDF) and local air pollution agencies under their permitting requirements.
Attachment 6
58 Sage Associates
A minimum of fire lines should be established. Hand clearing of some firelines can occur and existing roads
can be used as firelines. Dead brush can also be spot burned in the fall or winter to minimize the construction
of firelines. Brush can be crushed a year in advance to improve the effect of the burn. Minimal ground
disturbance shall occur. If fire lines have to be cut, then, site-specific conservation management practices for
reseeding and for waterbar diversions shall be followed. This program can be repeated every five to seven
years. Grazing of the burned areas shall be deferred until new grass growth has been established. Native
grass broadcast reseeding is encouraged in the burn areas.
Prescribed burning is included as a possible future management tool but is not required at this time. Liability,
costs, permitting, and logistics may make this option impractical at this time but the practice is still a possibility
for future adaptive management.
5.2.3.2 Wildlife
Wildlife resources will continue to be managed in part through the continued implementation of rangeland
management practices as previously described. Because grassland plants will also continue to benefit from
livestock control and the removal of invasive plants, native plant communities such as perennial grasses may
begin to flourish.
Predators
Mountain lion, coyote, and feral dogs may present predator problems to small calves on the ranch. Coyote and
feral dog predation has been documented by the Trues so future problems may occur. Grazing of larger
calves or stocker animals may reduce this problem. Fish and Game trapping is another possibility if needed.
Wildlife Game Animals
Feral pig management through MROSD-approved trapping is most important to rangeland management in
order to reduce damage to wetland, ponds, and spring sources – if needed.
Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife and livestock movement corridors will not be adversely affected by the proposed rangeland
management practices. Mowing of dense areas of coyote bush will provide more edge areas, grassland
mosaics, improve wildlife movement, and provide additional browse of mowed coyote bush sprouts. Proposed
pasture drift fencing will still allow for wildlife movement through natural livestock barriers.
Wildlife Water
Wildlife water sources will be improved through placement of reliable year around wildlife-friendly water
troughs. New and existing water troughs will contain wildlife escape ramps. Protection of spring water sources
will also continue to improve wildlife water quantity and quality adjacent to these areas.
Trees
MROSD will be responsible for all removal or modification of live and dead trees, unless they pose an
immediate danger to ranch operations or the public. Such trees provide important habitat for cavity nesting
bird species and for bats. Taller dead trees also provide important “hawking” sites for raptors to hunt from,
providing and unobstructed view. Dead trees should be considered an important part of integrated pest
management because of the habitat they provide to beneficial wildlife. Raptors also help to control ground
squirrels and gophers.
Attachment 6
59 Sage Associates
Ponds/Lakes
On-going natural siltation of the ponds will continue to occur (Photo 20). Maintenance of any pond may be
necessary in the future and will be the responsibility of the MROSD. Since these ponds contain suitable habitat
for red-legged frogs, San Francisco garter snake, and other amphibians and reptiles, any pond maintenance
will require interagency interaction with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Maintenance is needed at this time for the stockpond shown in the above photo. Exclusionary
fencing of the south and southwest edge of Mindego Lake will improve water quality and riparian habitat.
Springs
Springs on the ranch that are used as livestock and wildlife water trough sources are to boxed, and fenced to
preclude cattle. Fencing to exclude feral pigs may be needed in the future since wallowing can destroy spring
boxes. clog pipes, disrupt or stop spring flow, and reduce water quality.
5.2.3.3 Riparian Corridors
Riparian corridors are primarily located in woodland drainages that are inaccessible to livestock and contain
little forage value. Even so, if cattle were to accidentally enter the riparian corridors, studies corroborate that
overall wetland species composition is not sensitive to periodic intense grazing use if coupled with moderate
grazing levels on uplands (Allen-Diaz and Jackson, 2000).
The new larger water troughs are located outside of riparian corridors, and shall be utilized to improve the
livestock water use management by providing a larger volume of water and shorter livestock “stand around
time”. New, larger water troughs, supplements, and salt blocks are to be placed in upland areas in order to
draw livestock and wildlife away from the riparian corridors and water sources.
The small riparian area around the south shore of Mindego Lake is to be fenced. Mindego Creek is not
accessible to ranch livestock. If the old road to Mindego Creek is reopened, then, a gate and drift fence will be
needed as shown on Figure 7 and Photo21.
5.2.3.4 Invasive and or Noxious Species
This plan recommends the implementation of management measures for invasive plant and animal species
found within the ranch boundaries that could affect existing and future rangeland areas. This plan discusses
management options for invasive noxious non-native species that compete with native plant species and are
of little value to livestock and/or wildlife, resulting in an over-all reduction in habitat values to both flora and
fauna and negatively affecting grassland areas. A balance must be struck regarding maintenance
requirements since many of these invasive plants originated from outside the property and are regional
problems that may be uncontrollable.
This plan may be amended by the MROSD to cover additional invasive plants or animals if their populations
become problematic in the future as determined by annual monitoring visits. Collaborative efforts with other
agencies aimed at target invasive noxious species shall be encouraged for long-term management options for
existing and future invasive noxious species. Agencies may include California State Parks, California
Conservation Corps, BLM, U.S. Forest Service, U.C. Cooperative Extension, Natural Resource Conservation
Service, and the San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. Control and removal may not
necessarily be viable management options depending on infestations. All herbicide application shall follow the
San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner’s office restricted pesticide permit application requirements.
The following treatment practices have proven effective as a means to help control the species listed below.
Current MROSD-initiated treatment practices, if different than below, may continue or the following treatment
practices may be implemented. New treatment practices may also be utilized with MROSD approval as part of
the adaptive management requirement of this plan. Suggested rangeland management techniques discussed
Attachment 6
60 Sage Associates
in previous portions of this plan, including rotational grazing at a moderate level of intensity, will help to control,
but not eradicate, many of the plant species discussed below.
The Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve to the east of the ranch entrance does contain some yellow star
thistle and possibly some other invasive plants. Rangeland conditions of the preserve are higher than the
ranch so it is doubtful that noxious weeds spread from the preserve to the ranch in any abundance. However,
future grazing of the preserve is suggested in combination with the ranch to aid in noxious plant control. A
water trough stub line from the ranch to the preserve has been suggested since no trough water exists on the
preserve ridge east of the ranch. Cattle moved from the ranch to the preserve shall be held for 24 hours in the
arena corrals to reduce the spread of noxious plants through manure.
Wooly distaff thistle: The following procedures may be used to help eradicate the plant:
• Control all isolated plants and small outlying populations to prevent establishment of new stands.
• Implement yearly control measures before flower maturity and seed set or remove and dispose of seed
heads or mature flowering heads. Control methods may have to be repeated several times during a season for
plants with staggered maturities.
• Limit ground disturbance.
• Maximize vegetative cover of affected areas. Reseeding bare areas and maintaining recommended residual
dry matter and riparian stubble height levels will help prevent establishment of new seedlings.
• Hoeing can be effective in controlling small infestations and controlling plant spreading into adjacent areas.
Hoeing should occur when the plants are in the rosette stage or after they have bolted but before the flowers
start to show color. If the flowers show color, then, the plants should be removed from the site and disposed of
properly. Plant crowns should be dug up, removing at least 1.5 inches of taproot below ground to prevent
resprouting.
• As a last resort, systemic herbicide spraying may be done in late winter or early spring, ideally in January or
February. Most plants will be small rosettes at this time and may be difficult to locate. Broadleaf selective
herbicides are the best choice. In late spring or summer, non-selective herbicides may be used. Additional
eradication methods may also be acceptable, for example, discussions with other ranchers have indicated that
a mixture of Roundup and Transline herbicides has been very effective at controlling infestations.
• Localized prescribed burning may not be effective since the taproot will usually be undamaged and plant
resprouting will occur.
Purple star thistle: Management of purple starthistle is the most difficult because the plants can germinate
from fall through spring, therefore plant maturity can be staggered within a stand. This makes control
particularly difficult as different growth stages respond differently to different control techniques.
The following procedures may be used to help eradicate the plant:
• Control all isolated plants and small outlying populations to prevent establishment of new stands.
• Implement yearly control measures before flower maturity and seed set or remove and dispose of seed
heads or mature flowering heads. Control methods may have to be repeated several times during a season for
plants with staggered maturities.
• Limit ground disturbance.
• Maximize vegetative cover of affected areas. Reseeding bare areas and maintaining recommended residual
dry matter and riparian stubble height levels will help prevent establishment of new seedlings.
Attachment 6
61 Sage Associates
Specific control measures for purple star thistle may include the following:
• Hoeing can be effective in controlling small infestations and controlling plant
spreading into adjacent areas. Hoeing should occur when the plants are in the
rosette stage or after they have bolted but before the flowers start to show color. If the flowers show color,
then, the plants should be removed from the site and disposed of properly. Plant crowns should be dug up,
removing at least 1.5 inches of taproot below ground to prevent resprouting.
• Mowing is not an effective control method because plants in the rosette stage generally grow below the
height of a mower bar and because the robust taproot will resprout if top growth is removed. Mature plants that
are mowed may become bushier and will be more prolific seed producers.
• Systemic herbicide spraying should be done in late winter or early spring, ideally in January or February.
Most plants will be small rosettes at this time and may be difficult to locate. Broadleaf selective herbicides are
the conservation choice. In late spring or summer, non-selective herbicides may be used. Additional
eradication methods may also be acceptable; for example, discussions with Yolo County ranchers have
indicated that a mixture of Roundup and Transline herbicides has been very effective at controlling
infestations.
• Grazing management may aid in control where cattle willbrowse on immature seedlings and help to retard
their growth.
• Prescribed burning may not be effective since the taproot will usually be undamaged and plant resprouting
will occur.
Yellow star thistle: Management of any yellow starthistle infestations may be accomplished by a variety of
measures including the following:
1) Mowing of erect tall plants at the early flowering stage (late spring-early summer depend on conditions) will
help to control or eradicate the plant. Mowing must cut below the lowest branch of the main stem. Re-mowing
may be necessary. If mowing is done too early, then, star thistle can take advantage of the reduced
competition for space, light, and water.
2) Prescribed burning may only be effective if done in multiple three-year periods. Single-year fire treatments
are ineffective at controlling the plant.
3) Grazing can be effective at controlling the thistle when the plant is green and contains 11 to 28 percent
crude proteins. However, grazing early (February/March) and allowing late season grazing rest (May/June)
can favor star thistle production. Too heavy or too light grazing can also favor starthistle production.
4) Use of herbicides such as Clopyralid (Transline) may also be acceptable means of controlling star thistle.
Transline is a growth-regulator herbicide that arrests development of the growing points of the plants. It was
recently registered for use in non-crop areas of California, including pastures, rangeland, and wildlands.
Transline has proven to be safe for use on grasses, and also has excellent pre-emergent thistle control
qualities at very low use rates. Applications at the early rosette stage of plant development between January
and April at an application rate of at least one ounce per acre has shown to be an effective means of control.
Spot application of this herbicide may also be considered as an aid in thistle eradication.
5) Planting of clovers and/or perennial bunch grasses as competitive plants in combination with mowing or
grazing can further reduce the star thistle infestations.
6) Minimizing the grading of road surfaces and ground disturbances will further reduce plant densities and
seed germination areas.
Attachment 6
62 Sage Associates
7) Feed only certified weed-free hay.
Bull thistle: Mowing and hand cutting shortly before plants flower is an effective means of control. Spot
application of the herbicide 2,4 D has been shown to be effective during the rosette growth stage. Cattle and
horses may also eat the plant prior to the growth of the harder and larger spines.
Milk thistle: Thistles seedling require light to germinate, and do not compete well in areas with cover crops of
grasses or native plants. Thistles are the most susceptible to hand control during the seedling state, or as
they grow from seedlings to rosette. Fall is the best time for chemical control of annual thistles; while the early
spring rosette stage is most susceptible for biennial thistles. As a last resort, herbicides are most effective
during life states other that the rosette stage. Clopyralid, glyphosate (as Roundup), 2,4 D ester, MCPA have all
been shown to be effective. Livestock grazing using sheep or goats has shown promising results in trials in
Australia. Seedlings cannot establish in areas of dense groundcover, and thus should be considered for
control of re-invasion after initial control measures.
Italian thistle: Herbicides are most effective during life states other that the rosette stage; Clopyralid,
glyphosate (as Roundup) is effective.
Livestock grazing using sheep or goats has shown promising results in trials in Australia. Seedlings cannot
establish in areas of dense groundcover, and thus should be considered for control of re-invasion after initial
control measures.
Poison hemlock: Because poison hemlock is poisonous to humans, it is recommended that gloves and masks
be worn while removing this species. Soil disturbance must be minimized in any control method. Hand pulling
is effective for small infestations; it is not necessary for the entire root system to be removed. Timing is
critical; however, since pulling when seeds are viable would spread the seeds.
Mowing in spring and late summer over several seasons can be effective; subsequent mowing may be
required to control newly sprouted plants emerging from the soil seed bank. Post-emergent herbicides shown
to be effective include 2,4 D ester, 2,4 D amine, and glyphosate plus surfactant, all applied in late spring.
(Author’s note: surfactants are generally not approved for use in wetland or streamside areas.) Glyphosate
plus surfactant (trade name: Roundup) has been effective at the rate of 1.0 lb/acre, especially at the rosette
stage.
French broom: Hand removal, mowing, and treatment of cut stumps with Roundup is effective.
Harding grass: Rotational grazing when new shoots form in the spring may help to reduce plant density,
however, other annual and perennial grasses are more palatable so care must be taken not to overgraze.
Herbicides are not suggested due to the shear expanse of the plant. Prescribed burning after mid-January
appears to retard growth. Mowing prior to seed set in May or June and follow up rotational grazing can also
help to control plant density. Spraying of Harding grass with molasses or a liquid feed supplement should
increase the grazing palatability.
Coyote bush: If the MROSD is to manage grassland bio-diversity and fuel loads, then, reduction of coyote
bush (also hemlock and thistles) into grassland areas shall be implemented as a part of this plan. Field
experience has shown that early summer to early fall mowing, before seeds are set is effective at helping to
control the spread of coyote bush and other invasives into grassland areas. Follow up intensive rotational
grazing is important as new grow shoots occur from the mowed areas. The mowing should be at a two-inch
height to avoid ground disturbance and follow existing topographic contours in a curvilinear fashion. Mowed
slopes shall be 20 percent or less-usually what a wheel tractor can be operated on with necessary wheel and
bumper weights. A setback of 25 feet from all drainages or gully areas shall be observed. In sandy soil areas,
to control erosion, mow only where there is a developed grass understory. Repeated mowing will be necessary
in three to five years. For summer and early fall mowing, a fire control brush rig may be needed because of
the potential for spark-generated fires. Spring mowing shall not occur because of potential impacts to ground
Attachment 6
63 Sage Associates
nesting bird species. Otherwise, mowing shall be restricted to foggy mornings in the summer and early fall
before 10AM.
This plan therefore proposes that mowing shall occur in areas of infestation followed by rotational grazing into
the old hay meadow shown in Figure 7 and Photo 22. Carrying capacity may be increased by 25 percent or
more with the reduction of coyote bush canopy cover in grassland areas. Wildfire fuel loads will be decreased.
Native trees including willows shall not be mowed. Mowing can begin next year prior to seed setting of the
various plants.
Sudden Oak Death: Treatment may include leaving the tree in place if inaccessible or burying or burning so as
not to spread the fungus. Driving, riding, or walking under the dripline of the dead tree may spread the fungus
to other areas and may need to be regulated by the MROSD if identified on the ranch in the future. Most
importantly do not remove the tree from the infected area, which will reduce the chance of spreading the
fungus to other areas.
Feral pigs
Exclusionary fencing of springs; and trapping for control as authorized by the MROSD. Springs, seeps, ponds,
and watercourses within rangeland areas are especially susceptible to damage from feral pigs. As discussed
above, spring sources, should continue to be fenced or boxed to exclude feral pigs.
5.2.3.5 Water Quality
The Mindego Hill Ranch is located within the San Francisco Coastal South watershed area (LSA, 2002).
Mindego Creek, is a part of the San Gregorio Creek basin, which has been classified as an impaired water
body due to sedimentation/siltation and high levels of coliform by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board’s 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies in the San Francisco Bay Region. Cattle grazing on the
ranch are excluded by several hundred yards from Mindego Creek so the creek water quality would not be
affected by the grazing operation. Other more general concerns are alluded to below.
Non-Point Source Pollution results from land use practices where waste is not collected and disposed of in
some identifiable manner. Non-point sources of pollution include: urban drainage, agricultural runoff, road
construction activities, mining, grassland management, logging and other harvest activities, and natural
sources such as effects of fire, flood, and landslide. Management of rangeland and cropland may have a vast
effect upon water quality, but currently very little regulation. Because the source of pollution is difficult to
determine, regulation and enforcement has also been difficult. With more political pressure upon water quality
governing bodies to control the water quality more effectively within their jurisdiction, agricultural practices may
not continue to be exempt. Therefore, agriculture operations need to be proactive in determining what
standards are likely to be and implementing their own monitoring protocols in order to determine whether they
will be in compliance.
Suggested practices for protection of sensitive areas such as stream banks, wetlands, estuaries, ponds,
lakeshores and riparian zones include: exclusion of livestock, providing stream crossings, construction of
hardened water access for drinking, providing alternative drinking water sources, salting and providing shade
away from sensitive areas and the use of improved grazing management such as rest rotational grazing to
reduce impact upon sensitive areas (CCSWRCB, 2003).
Specific RWQCB suggested water quality management practices include the following
that are consistent with the required conservation management practices of this plan.
Grazing Water Quality Management
• Implement one or more of the following to protect sensitive resources such as streambanks, wetlands,
ponds, riparian zones, by excluding livestock, providing stream crossings or hardened access to water,
Attachment 6
64 Sage Associates
provide alternate water sources, locate salt and supplements away from water, and improve animal grazing
management.
• Utilize USDA NRCS planning approaches to maintain grazing lands to reduce erosion.
Wetland and Riparian Water Quality Management
• Maintain riparian functionality within the watershed. For example, photographic observation of stream
channels will help determine whether stream functionality is improving or decreasing. Representative riparian
corridor areas should be photographed for increased woody and herbaceous growth in the stream channel,
reduced sloughing of the stream bank and for increased amount of water present in the stream during the fall
low flow periods. Increased stream functioning conditions will help reduce sedimentation and will increase the
amount of infiltration of water into the rangeland. Increased infiltration of water during high flow periods will
increase the amount of water available to riparian plants, thereby increasing biomass and beneficial species.
It will also increase water levels during low flow periods, which will help to decrease water temperatures.
• Encourage the use of programs that restore wetlands and riparian areas.
• Reduce erosion and, to the extent practicable, retain sediment onsite during and after earth disturbances.
• Use vegetative filter strips to remove sediments and reduce pollutants from entering riparian and wetland
systems.
Erosion and Sediment Control Water Quality Management
• Utilize prescribed grazing and riparian management techniques such as rotational grazing, and residual dry
matter management.
Conservation management practices as proposed in this plan are consistent with the above management
practices suggested by the RWQCB including riparian fencing, erosion control, water troughs, rotational
grazing, and residual dry matter performance standards. It must be noted that feral pigs also contribute to
bank erosion/sedimentation and coliform levels within drainage systems that the feral pigs frequent.
Attachment 6
65 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
66 Sage Associates
6.0 MONITORING PROGRAM
The monitoring program for grazed MROSD lands must ensure that the specified rangeland uses are in
compliance with the applicable land use regulations and the land stewardship goals, objectives, and
implementing guidelines.
Monitoring programs will adhere to the MROSD guidelines listed below.
Monitor vegetation response to grazing on District lands.
• Monitor forage utilization and distribution by grazing animals to assure appropriate amounts of residual
dry matter remain on the ground to achieve desired resource management objectives.
• Monitor livestock use levels and infrastructure condition to insure conformity with lease provisions to
contribute to improved management.
• Monitor wildland conditions with an emphasis on documenting the location, distribution and abundance
of native grasses, wildflowers, and other native flora and fauna.
• Monitor non-native vegetation response to grazing with an emphasis on documenting the location,
distribution and abundance of target invasive species.
To satisfy the above requirement, the following checklists and photo point monitoring forms are to be utilized
for the rangeland monitoring program on an annual basis in the fall prior to rainfall. The monitoring program
implementation shall be the responsibility of the MROSD staff. In addition, the yearly rotation schedule, herd
type, and stocking rates shall be provided to the MROSD by the grazing lessee prior to the fall monitoring, and
included with the fall monitoring report.
Natural climatic changes, geologic processes, and biologic cycles that are beyond the lessee control shall be
noted, as applicable, in the checklist monitoring discussion summaries. Natural processes may include, but
are not limited to, drought, flooding, landslides, pre-existing soil erosion, fault movements, wildfires, and
vegetation responses to climate changes such as global warming, invasive noxious plants, pathogens, and
pests.
Monitoring shall require the use of techniques consistent with the University of California Cooperative
Extension, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the U.S.
Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management monitoring and management practices for working
landscapes.
The following photo point monitoring checklist and the rangeland/habitat health checklist have been
established for evaluating the Mindego Hill Ranch rangeland grazing areas and include the following:
The checklists include those items that require yearly inspection to assure that rangeland management
practices are consistent with this grazing management plan. Existing photos utilized in this plan may also be
utilized as photo points for the monitoring. We suggest that photo points be used that best characterize the
grazing management. A completed photo point and checklist, including the monitoring methodology used in
the completion of the checklist, is included in Appendix A. The photo point and checklist completion shall be
repeated yearly in the fall. Additional photo point locations may be added at the discretion of the MROSD.
Monitoring results can also be used as a guideline for any future adaptive management changes that may be
shown to be necessary from the monitoring. For example, prolonged drought may cause a reduction in
carrying capacity in order to still achieve the minimum residual dry matter performance standards.
Attachment 6
67 Sage Associates
6.1 Photo Point Checklist #1 Description of Monitoring Items:
Representative photo points are instrumental in determining overall landscape and vegetative changes over
time that may be related to management, climate, natural processes such as fire and flood, and biological
processes. A photo point form is included as Photo Point Monitoring Checklist #1 and shall be utilized yearly in
the fall by the monitors for each photo point location. Some of the initial photo point determinations in this plan
can be used to provide the representative baseline condition for that specific area of the rangeland that is to
be monitored as long as grazing occurs. All chosen photo point locations shall be shown on an ortho-photo
topographic base Monitoring Photo Location Map along with GPS coordinates and direction of photo for each
photo point and entered into the MROSD GIS mapping system. A larger-scale map can be made available if
desired. Photo points shall be representative of rangeland, and resource community landscapes within the
grazed areas. At each photo point location, a description of the monitoring items checklist shall be completed
through the methodology described at the end of this section on a completed example of Photo Point Checklist
#1 and Rangeland-Habitat Health Checklist #2 that are used to specifically illustrate the methodology.
___ Rangeland-Habitat Health – if this can be determined from the photo then complete Checklist #2 for each
applicable photo point location. Not applicable photos could include a photo of road maintenance or water
trough infrastructure. A detailed description of the various rangeland health indicators as revised by the NRCS
in California in 2007 is included in Appendix B. (See also 6.2)
___ Residual Dry Matter (RDM) Average Inches per Slope %: ___0-30% ___>30% is based on UCCE (2003)
and NRCS (2007) prescribed grazing performance standards included in Appendix B of this plan. The
performance standard for a moderate level of grazing is an average minimum of two to three inches RDM for
slopes of 0 to 30 percent (about 800 to 1,000 pounds per acre of dry matter) and three to four inches RDM for
slopes greater than 30 percent (about 1,000 to 1,200 pounds per acre of dry matter). Adequate levels of
residual dry matter are important for providing next years annual and perennial grassland seed crop, for
promoting the vigor of perennial grasslands, for reducing erosion and sedimentation, and for preserving water
quality and rangeland health.
Example for 0-30% slope: In some areas rangeland will show evidence of extensive grazing. Residual
vegetation is patchy with some areas grazed to less than one inch and other areas with greater vegetation
remaining. Bare ground showing evidence of pocket gopher activity may exist. Golf ball objects are clearly
visible at a distance of 10 feet and mostly visible at a distance of 20 feet. In some areas rangeland will typically
show clear evidence of grazing. Seed stalks may be heavily utilized or trampled. Considerable ground cover
and leaf litter may be present. Some bare soil will be apparent including pocket gopher activity, visible from a
distance of 20 feet. Many golf ball sized objects are partially visible at a distance of 10 feet, and some may be
barely visible at a distance of 20 feet.
Example for greater than 30% slopes: In some areas rangeland may show evidence of considerable grazing
use. Seed stalks may be heavily utilized. Ground cover is essentially complete. Little bare soil is apparent
except for occasional pocket gopher activity and livestock/game trails. Some golf ball sized objects may be
visible or only barely visible at a distance of 10 feet but seldom visible at a distance of 20 feet.
Exempt from the RDM performance standards include the following:
• Pastures that are burned, roads, tanks and reservoir sites, and rock outcrops.
• Areas within one hundred (100) yards of watering troughs, water tanks, supplements, salt licks, holding
fields/traps, animal handling corrals, or where animals may naturally congregate due to topography or
weather.
• Areas of low fertility due to insufficient soil depth, sand, or quality and steep slopes regar dless of grazing
pressure.
• Areas with extensive tree or shrub canopy cover.
Attachment 6
68 Sage Associates
• Areas subject to periodic insect infestations such as from grasshoppers and crickets.
• Areas subject to feral pig ground damage, or other wild animal use and disturbance.
A measure for impairment or non-compliance can be identified from Residual Dry Matter performance
standards. In an above average rainfall year and in an average rainfall year, the residual dry matter
performance standards should be met as described above. In below average rainfall years performance
standards may be exceeded but not for more than two years in a row. In above average rainfall years,
stocking may necessarily increase to achieve target performance standards. Lessee operational management
should be able to adapt to lower rainfall amounts and distribution over a two-year period. Long-term
impairment of resources will not be permanent if management changes meet performance standards within
the two-year period.
___ Plant Communities Observed: Include a list of plant communities viewed in the photo such as annual
grassland, coastal sage scrub, wetland, woodland, etc. based on Section 4 of this plan. Also include relative
abundance of perennial grasslands if present per the categories in the checklist . Note if coyote bush areas
have been mowed and plant resprouting over successive years of monitoring.
___ Wildlife Observed: Especially important for photo points at ponds, and grasslands per Section 4 of this
plan. Note relative abundance.
___ Grazing Infrastructure Maintenance: Important for fencing and water trough and any water tank
maintenance. Look for wildlife escape ramps on troughs, spring exclusionary fencing, and gravel pads at the
troughs.
___ Access Road Maintenance Observations: Important items include minimal grading, mowing, culvert rip rap
and gully repair.
___ Yearly Rainfall in Inches and Distribution: Annual precipitation records are an important part of any
monitoring effort and shall be included in each yearly monitoring report on the spaces provided in the relevant
monitoring checklists. A comparison with available average rainfall and average rainfall distribution records
shall be made yearly to ascertain whether or not the rainfall was normal in monthly amount and distribution for
the monitoring year.
___ Invasive Species: note species and relative abundance per the categories in the checklist.
In summary, the choosing of the representative photo point and the checking of the monitoring items is part of
the monitoring protocol. It is expected that a walking transect of the foreground areas of the photo point be
completed as a part of filling in the appropriate checklist items. Some photo points may be only representative
of landscapes so no detailed checklist evaluations would be made other than to note landscape changes over
time and the possible causes of such changes. The time spent at each photo point will necessarily be variable
depending on the checklist requirements. Time may vary from a few minutes to about one half hour in most
cases.
Checklist #1 as blank and completed forms is included in Appendix A. Additional pages may be attached as
needed.
6.2 Rangeland Habitat Health, Checklist #2
Rangeland and habitat health will require a yearly evaluation in the fall of seventeen Indicators that are shown
on Checklist #2 and are included in more detail in Appendix B. These factors have been previously discussed
in the plan and will be utilized for the determination of overall rangeland and habitat health as well as for soil
conditions, erosion occurrences, plant community and reproduction characteristics, invasive plant problems,
and overall plant mortality and stress. Overall health of the habitat communities is easily incorporated in this
Attachment 6
69 Sage Associates
checklist per applicable representative photo point. These factors shall be observed and recorded in checklist
form at each applicable designated photo point location. This method is to be used as a qualitative indicator to
see what you may want to monitor quantitatively that can help guide management responses. Use the NRCS
Range Site and soil description from the soil survey for baseline information as to what is considered normal
for the particular soil series.
The rangeland and habitat health indicators have been developed by the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (1997)(revised in 2007) for working landscapes in order to assess departures from normal
characteristics. Overall normal rangeland health maintains or improves soil fertility, reduces erosion and
sedimentation, improves water quality, allows for plant community biodiversity and management, and provides
suitable habitat for wildlife.
For the evaluation, the rangeland and habitat health Indicators are evaluated in categories that range from
normal with none to slight deviations from normal, to not normal with extreme deviations from normal that are
to be filled in on Checklist #2. A summary discussion is also to be included for deviations from normal and for
rainfall amounts and distribution.
A measure for change can be identified from the Rangeland-Habitat Health Checklist when listed indicators
show “moderate to extreme or becoming not normal”. The MROSD and lessee should work together to
reverse the changes as conditions are noted in the monitoring reports if due to grazing operational
management. In working landscapes, changes can usually be reversed so as to avoid irreversible changes to
the resources. Climatic, geologic, and biologic processes beyond the lessee control may also be a source of
impairment and should be stated as such.
Rangeland-Habitat Health Checklist #2 as blank and completed forms is included in Appendix A.
The completed Checklists #1 and #2 shall be compiled and stored for long-term reference, a dedicated three
ring binder is convenient. Monitoring shall commence during the first grazing season after the composition of
this plan (Fall 2008). MROSD shall be responsible for safeguarding all monitoring records. Subsequent
monitoring year checklists and information should be securely stored with previous years’ information for
comparison and consistency.
Some of the representative photos used in this plan may also be utilized as photo monitoring points. For
example, Photos 1, 2 3, 9, 17, and 26 can be used to monitor landscape changes over time; Photos 7, 8, 10,
24, 27, 28, and 29 can be used to monitor residual dry matter, rangeland/habitat health, and invasive plants;
Photo 22 can be used to monitor existing coyote bush conversion mowing; and Photos 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 28 can be used to monitor corral, trough, spring, fence and facility
infrastructure, ponds/lakes, and roads use and maintenance.
A short executive summary shall be included in the monitoring report that summarizes the results of each
monitoring year for each of the grazing areas and compared to the previous year(s) monitoring results in text
and/or tabular form. The results of each monitoring year shall then be discussed amongst the MROSD staff to
see if any adaptive management changes are required to be implemented.
The results of the yearly monitoring will determine if any anticipated or unanticipated adaptive management
changes are necessary. This plan attempts to foresee anticipated changes and proposes conservation
management practices that are responsive to such changes. However, unforeseen changes may occur that
may require plan updates as determined by MROSD as a part of this plan or more detailed quantitative
monitoring methods.
MROSD may also choose, in addition to the yearly monitoring, to have detailed research studies performed by
academic researchers that would yield more in-depth data on rangeland trends and long-term habitat
responses to grazing.
Attachment 6
70 Sage Associates
A graphic example of a representative Photo Point Monitoring Checklist #1 and Rangeland-Habitat Health
Checklist #2 for Photo 19 are included in Appendix Ato illustrate the methodology for these two checklists.
Future fencing of the back (south/southwest) side of Mindego Lake is proposed to protect the bank, the spring
flow into the lake, reduce trailing of the woodlands above the lake, and increase the extent of the shade that
the willows provide. Invasive plant management will be needed within the exclusionary fence area. The front
(north) side of the lake shall remain unfenced for cattle water.
The photo point was chosen to illustrate annual grassland habitat, invasive plants, and
riparian/lake/spring/woodland habitat. The photo was taken on May 1, 2008. The spring flows down the slope
in the center of the photo. Weeds along the lakeshore are kept down due to grazing. Exclusionary fencing is
proposed for the south shore area beginning to the left (east) side of the spring where weed management will
be required. The actual future monitoring would be done in the fall before fall rains. The final GPS location
should be recorded at that time once the precise photo point location is chosen.
Methodology for the sample photo point (Sample Completed Checklists are in Appendix A):
Choose a Representative Photo Point Location.
The area was chosen for the annual grassland, riparian, woodland and pond/lake aquatic habitats and the
Mindego Hill and Mindego Lake viewshed. Cattle trailing in the woodland, spring, and south lakeshore riparian
area is extensive. Invasive plants are common in the grassland area north of the lake.
Take the photo and record the compass bearing location of the photo and the GPS coordinates on the
finalized photo point form. A permanent photo point marker such as a steel tee post or a flexible fiberglass
marker may be used, but only if acceptable by MROSD.
Fill in the General Form Information.
This includes the monitoring form page and photo point number, the names of the monitors, the date, and the
location. The location of the photo point will also be shown on a Monitoring Photo Location Map. This photo is
the same as Photo 17 in the plan that is shown on the Photo Location Map.
Description of Monitoring Items.
Check the applicable monitoring items that you have photographed. Make your field observations of the area
within this photograph. The field observations will require a walking transect of the field of view in the
foreground, and midground of this photograph and filling in the appropriate checklist information. The
midground will include a walk around the lake to check the status of the proposed exclusionary fencing, the
weed maintenance within the excluded area, the riparian growth, the spring flow, the woodland trailing
recovery southwest of the lake and the RDM and invasive plants north of the lake.
In the case of this photo we have checked the following:
X Rangeland-Habitat Health – proceed to completing Checklist #2 as shown on the next page.
Rangeland-Habitat Health – by checking this item, you must then complete Checklist #2 (completed in
Appendix A) that evaluates rangeland/habitat health Indicators that are described in the plan. This checklist
also requires a discussion of rainfall amounts and distribution.
Rangeland Health Indicators are evaluated for the Fine Loamy Range Site per the USDA Soil Survey (1961,
and 1969) descriptions. The area is currently grazed and the lake is used extensively for livestock water.
Trailing of the spring flow area in the left of the photo and in the woodlands in the right of the photo is
extensive. The Extreme or Not Normal categories are therefore checked for bare ground occurrence, litter
movement, litter amount; the Moderate to Extreme or Becoming Not Normal categories are also checked for
water flow patterns, and soil compaction layers for the trailed areas. For the invasive plant areas the Extreme
Attachment 6
71 Sage Associates
or Not Normal categories are checked for invasive plants, and for changing plant community types due to the
invasive thistles. Gullying was observed to the left of the photo and is checked as well.
The two NA – not applicable Indicators are checked since perennial grasses were not observed.
X Residual Dry Matter – this item is checked because the photo point includes residual dry matter in the
annual grassland area. Average height is about three inches on slopes from 0 to 30 percent at least 100 yards
north of the lake water source. Observation for RDM needs to be done in the fall for more accurate results.
RDM will diminish about five percent per month in the summer after annual grassland growth has ceased.
X Plant Communities Observed – this item is checked and the plant communities would include annual
grassland, woodland, riparian and pond aquatic. Plant community health and function was evaluated in
Checklist #2. A walking transect in the foreground, and midground south of the lake was conducted. Perennial
grasses were absent and the relative abundance was recorded.
X Wildlife Observed – coast range newts, dead catfish, and bull frogs were observed in the lake that rated a 2
for relative abundance of wildlife.
Grazing Infrastructure Maintenance – no fences were in the photo so this item would not be checked.
However, an exclusionary fence is proposed for the back (south/southwest) side of the lake that would be
included in the next photo.
Access Road Maintenance Observations – no secondary roads were in the photo.
X Yearly Rainfall in Inches from the closest rainfall station would be included at the end of the rainfall year on
June 30th. Rainfall seasonal distribution would also be included. Thus far rainfall was below the 25-inch
normal and distribution was poor with little or no rain in March and April.
X Invasive Species would also be noted along with their relative abundance 4– for purple star thistle and 3-
including bull or milk thistle and Italian thistle in the photo. Thistles may be less abundant this year due to the
lack of late season rains.
6.3 Adaptation
In summary, the choosing of the representative photo point and the checking of the monitoring items is part of
the monitoring protocol. It is expected that a walking transect of the foreground and midground areas of the
photo point be completed as a part of filling in the appropriate checklist items. Some photo points may be only
representative of landscapes so no detailed checklist evaluations would be made other than to note landscape
changes over time and the possible causes of such changes. The time spent at each photo point will
necessarily be variable depending on the checklist requirements. Time may vary from a few minutes to about
one half hour in most cases.
The results of the yearly monitoring will determine if any anticipated or unanticipated adaptive management
changes are necessary. This plan attempts to foresee anticipated changes and proposes conservation
management practices that are responsive to such changes. However, unforeseen changes may occur that
may require plan updates, quantitative monitoring, or research, as determined by the MROSD.
Attachment 6
72 Sage Associates
7.0 REFERENCES
7.1 Plan Preparers
Orrin Sage, Ph.D Geological Sciences (emphasis sedimentology); Principal Sage Associates; California Board
of Forestry Registered Certified Rangeland Manager #64. Certified Professional Erosion/Sediment Control
#692. Agricultural Resources sections.
Cindy Sage, B.A. Zoology, M.A. Geological Sciences - environmental multidisciplinary degree in geology and
biological resources; Owner Sage Associates. Natural Resources sections.
7.2 Persons/Organizations Consulted
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Representatives
Stella Cousins – Open Space Planner
Kirk Lenington – Resource Planner
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Jim Howard – Soils Survey information
True Family
Veronica True
7.3 Bibliography
Allen-Diaz, Barbara, and others, 1998, Detecting Channel Morphology Change in California's Hardwood Rangeland Spring
Ecosystems: Journal of Range Management v. 51.
Allen-Diaz, Barbara, and Jackson, Randall, D., March 2000, Grazing Effects on Spring Ecosystem Vegetation of
California's Hardwood Rangelands: Journal of Range Management, v. 53.
Barbour, M.G. and J. Major, 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Barrett, R.H., 1980. Mammals of California Oak Habitats: Management Implications. IN: Ecology, management, and
utilization of California oaks. US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report PSW-44.
Bossard, C., J.M. Randall, and M. Hoshovsky, editors, 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. University of
California Press.
Brunson, Mark W., and Huntsinger, Lynn, March 2008, Ranching as a Conservation Strategy: Can Old Ranchers Save the
New West? : Rangeland Ecology & Management 61 (2).
Bush, Lisa, 2006, Assessment of the Potential for Livestock Re-Introduction to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
Camp Dresser & McKee, and others, 1993, California Storm Water Conservation Management Practice Handbooks.
Chamberlain, David J., and Doverspike, Mark S., April 2001, Water Tanks Protect Streambanks: Rangelands v. 23.
Cooperative Extension, 1982, Guidelines for Residue Management on Annual Range: Leaflet 21327 University of
California Division of Agricultural Sciences.
Cooperative Extension, 1984, Annual Grassland Forage Productivity: Leaflet 21378 University of California Division of
Agricultural and Natural Resources.
Cooperative Extension, 1985, Preliminary Guidelines for Managing California's Hardwood Rangelands: University of
California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 21413.
Attachment 6
73 Sage Associates
Cooperative Extension, 1990, Monitoring California's Annual Rangeland Vegetation: Leaflet 21486 University of California
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Crampton, B. 1974. Grasses of California. University of California Press.
DiDonato, Joseph, 2007, Endangered Amphibian Research within Grazed Grasslands: Keeping Landscapes Working, A
University California Cooperative Extension Newsletter for Rangeland Managers Winter 4-6.
Faber, Phyllis and Holland, Robert, 1988, Common Riparian Plants of California: Picklewood Press, Mill Valley, California.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998, Stream Corridor Restoration Principles, Processes, and
Practices: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Frost, Rachel A., and Launchbaugh, Karen L., December 2003, Prescription Grazing for Rangeland Weed Management:
Rangelands.
George, Melvin, and others, 2007, Factors and Practices that Influence Livestock Distribution: University of California
Rangeland Management Series Publication 8217.
Guenther, Keith, 1998, Residual Dry Matter (RDM) Monitoring Photo Guide: Wildland Solutions, Clyde, California.
Hickman, James C., editor, 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.
Holechek, Jerry, and Galt, Dee, June 2000, Grazing Intensity Guidelines: Rangelands, v. 22.
Holechek, Jerry, and others, 1995, Range Management: Prentice Hall.
Holland, Robert F., October 1986. Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Non-Game Heritage Program, Department of Fish and Game, State of California Resources Agency.
Holland, V. L., and Keil, David J., 1995, California Vegetation: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, Iowa.
Jensen, Wayne, June 2000, Central Coast Agriculture Highlights: U. C. Cooperative Extension.
LSA Associates, 2002, Resource Assessment Mindego Hill (True Ranch): Peninsula Open Space Trust, Menlo Park, CA.
McDougald, Neil, and others, 1996, Establishing Livestock Carrying Capacity From GIS & Range Science Research: Oaks
& Folks publication.
Munz, P.A.,1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press.
Munz, P.A. and D.D. Keck, 1973. A California Flora and Supplement. University of California Press.
Nader, Glenn, and DiTomaso, Joseph M., 1998, Starthistle Control: University of California Cooperative Extension
Sutter/Yuba Counties, California.
National Research Council, 1994, Rangeland Health: National Academy Press.
San Mateo County, 2005, Annual Crop Report: Agricultural Commissioner’s Office.
San Mateo County, 2006, Annual Crop Report: Agricultural Commissioner’s Office.
San Mateo County, 2007, Invasive Weeds: Agricultural Commissioner’s Office.
Sheley, Roger L., and others, February 2003, Mowing: An Important Part of Integrated Weed Management: Rangelands
25 (1).
Thomsen, Craig D., and others, 1997, Mowing and Subclover Plantings Suppress Yellow Starthistle: California Agriculture
November-December 1997.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1961, Soil Survey of San Mateo Area California: Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1980, Soil Survey of Santa Cruz County, California: Soil Conservation Service.
Attachment 6
74 Sage Associates
United States Department of Agriculture, 1969, A Supplement to the Soil Survey of San Mateo Area California: Soil
Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1976, National Range Handbook: Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1979, Recommended Plan of Conservation Management Practices: Soil
Conservation Service Planning Staff, Davis, California.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1990, Proceedings of the Symposium on Oak Woodlands and Hardwood Range
Management: Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report PSW-126.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1996, Conservation Standards and Specifications Technical Guide Section IV:
Natural Resource Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1997, National Range and Pasture Handbook: Natural Resource Conservation
Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1998, A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Stream
Areas: TR 1737-15 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 2000, Prescribed Grazing: Natural Resources Conservation Service Code 528A.
United States Department of Agriculture, 2005, Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health: NRCS Version 4.
United States Department of Agriculture, 2005, Monitoring Manual: ARS Jornada Experimental Range.
United States Department of Agriculture, 2007, Draft California Rangeland Health Evaluation Matrix: NRCS Davis,
California.
United States Department of the Interior, 1988, Fences: Bureau of Land Management.
United States Department of the Interior, 1998, Assessment of Rangeland Health Standards, Contributing Factors and
Appropriate Actions: Bureau of Land Management Hollister District.
United States Department of the Interior, 1998, Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for California and
Northwestern Nevada Final EIS: Bureau of Land Management.
University of California, 1951, California Grasslands and Range Forage Grasses: California Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin 724.
University of California, 1963, California Range Brushlands and Browse Plants: Agricultural Experimental Station
Extension Service.
University of California Cooperative Extension, 1982, Guidelines for Residue Management on Annual Range: Leaflet
21327 Division of Agricultural Sciences.
University of California Cooperative Extension, 1990, Monitoring California's Annual Rangeland Vegetation: Leaflet 21486
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
University of California Cooperative Extension, 1994, "How To" Monitor Rangeland Resources: Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources.
University of California Press, 2000, Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands.
University of California Cooperative Extension, 2003, California Guidelines for Residual Dry Matter (RDM) Management on
Coastal and Foothill Annual Rangelands: Publication 8092.
Weltz, Mark, and others, 1998, Influence of Abiotic and Biotic Factors in Measuring and Modeling Soil Erosion on
Rangelands: State of Knowledge: Journal Range Management v. 51.
Western Livestock Journal, April 2001, Water Tanks Have Advantages Over Ponds.
Attachment 6
75 Sage Associates
Western Livestock Journal, February 3, 2003, Water Wisdom Boosts Cattle Performance, Protects Environment.
Willms, Walter D., and others, September 2002, Effects of Water Quality on Cattle Performance: Journal of Range
Management 55 (5).
Attachment 6
76 Sage Associates
APPENDICES
A: Completed and Sample Monitoring Forms
B: California Rangeland Health Evaluation Matrix, NRCS 2007
Attachment 6
77 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
78 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
79 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
80 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
81 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
82 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
83 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
84 Sage Associates
Attachment 6
R-20-11
Meeting 20-02
January 22, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Annual Dedication Report of Certain Lands of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Accept the annual report on the status of dedicated interests in lands of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District held for public open space purposes.
SUMMARY
In accordance with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) Policy for
Dedication of District Lands, adopted in January 1986 (Attachment 1), an annual report of the
status of District lands as dedicated or undedicated is prepared each December/January. To date,
approximately 67% of District lands are dedicated. Based on an annual, parcel-specific analysis
of District property, no additional land is recommended this year for dedication.
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the Policy for Dedication of District Lands, the Board of Directors (Board)
receives an annual report indicating the status of District lands as dedicated or undedicated as of
December 1st of the reporting year. The annual report may also contain recommendations for
additional dedication of specific District properties or interests in lands. Upon dedication, those
properties effectively become permanently protected, and the District voluntarily eliminates its
ability to sell or otherwise convey those dedicated properties without voter consent, except under
narrow statutory exceptions. The exceptions are referenced in the District’s enabling legislation
within Public Resources Code Section 5540. The statutory exceptions only permit the following:
(a) exchanges of dedicated land of equal or greater open space value not to exceed a total of 40
acres in a calendar year, or (b) the transfer of land to another government agency upon the
condition that the land will continue to be protected as open space in perpetuity.
Undedicated lands within District boundaries are reserved for future dedication to park and/or
open space purposes, but only after the necessary planning, boundary adjustments, provision for
permanent access, and other changes in configuration, which may involve the disposal or
exchange of interests in all or portions of such lands, have been completed. Retaining certain
lands in an undedicated status is often in the public’s best interest as this affords maximum
flexibility to achieve these modifications and secure the rights necessary for priority goals such
as wildlife and trail connectivity. In the interim, undedicated District lands may be used for park
or open space purposes within the meaning of Section 5540 of the Public Resources Code.
R-20-11 Page 2
When considering the adoption of any Use and Management Plan, the Board determines whether
the underlying land is to be dedicated at the time of the annual report, or to be withheld until a
later time, such as when comprehensive planning has been completed. Dedication status is also
reviewed as part of the regular land use and management planning process, such as approval of a
Site Plan, Preserve Plan or Master Plan. When approving such plans, the Board may adopt a
motion of intention to dedicate at that time or to withhold dedication until a future time. Another
factor for consideration is whether a granting agency requires land dedication as a condition of
funding support.
DISCUSSION
Dedication Status Summary
The Dedication Status Summary Report 2019 (Attachment 2) provides the total acres held within
each District preserve and their dedication status. Only those parcels for which title has passed
to the District on or before December 31, 2019 are included in the acreage totals. The interests
in land that the District holds, i.e., fee title, easement, or other (lease, management agreement,
etc.), are listed for each category. Rights of first refusal and/or reversions to the District are not
included. The table below provides a summary of the dedication status of District lands.
Land Interests of the District Acres
Fee Title Interests 58,658.82
Lesser Interests 5,270.93
Total District Interests 63,929.75
Lands with lesser interest that prevent dedication -1,919.55*
Total acres of lands with marketable interests 62,010.20
Dedication status of lands with marketable interests % Acres
Dedicated lands 66.41 41,178.31
Undedicated lands 33.59 20,831.89
Total acres of lands with marketable interests 100.00 62,010.20
*Land with lesser interest include lands protected by District funding contributions and long
term agreements with other agencies.
Open Space Lands Acquired since December 1, 2018
The last annual report was presented to the Board on December 12, 2018 (R-18-150). The table
below reports total lands acquired since that date that have closed escrow as of December 1, 2018.
Year Interest
Type Acres Appraised
Value
District
Expenditure
Partner funds,
exchanges, grants or gifts
2019 Fee 435.01 $2,992,799 $2,303,999 $688,800
2019 Easement 0.18 $0 $0 $0
Total 435.19 $2,992,799 $2,303,999 $688,800
Dedication Recommendations for 2019
The District annually conducts a parcel-specific analysis to provide dedication recommendations.
The analysis includes consideration of criteria identified in the governing policy (Attachment 1).
Staff also considers preserve parcel configuration, surrounding land use, pending negotiations for
R-20-11 Page 3
adjacent acquisitions, project coordination with partner agencies, and other relevant factors.
Based upon the analysis conducted, there are no lands suitable for dedication at this time.
Recommendations for Later Dedication
Pockets of undedicated lands occur throughout the District, but the majority of the District’s
undedicated land lies within La Honda Creek and Sierra Azul Open Space Preserves (OSP). At
La Honda Creek OSP, 48% (3,038.61 acres) of the 6,333.70-acre preserve is undedicated.
Development of public access improvements are underway in the Preserve. When the 2012
Master Plan is amended to include property acquired since 2012, and public access
improvements are completed, the status of undedicated lands will be reevaluated. At Sierra Azul
OSP, 71% (13,686.93 acres) of the 19,185.48-acre preserve is undedicated. Completion of the
Sierra Azul OSP Master Plan was deferred to allow for a focused implementation of the Mount
Umunhum Public Access and Environmental Restoration Project. When long-term management
goals for the entire Preserve are approved, the status of undedicated lands will be reevaluated.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no costs and no fiscal impact associated with acceptance of this report.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
No Board Committee review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided pursuant to the Brown Act. Notice was also given to the California
Coastal Conservancy, County of Santa Clara, County of San Mateo, Santa Clara Valley Water
District, and Peninsula Open Space Trust. No additional notice is necessary.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) COMPLIANCE
No compliance is required as this action is not a project under CEQA.
NEXT STEPS
In December 2020, Real Property staff will review with other Departments the District lands that
may be suitable for dedication in the future, and provide these findings as part of the 2020
Annual Dedication report.
Attachments:
1. Policy for Dedication of District Lands
2. Dedication Status Summary Report 2019
Responsible Department Head and Staff Contact:
Michael Williams, Real Property Department Manager
Prepared by:
Elish Ryan, Real Property Planner III
Jasmine Leong, Real Property Specialist I
RESOLUTION NO. 86-6
Adopted 1/22/86
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE DEDICA-
TION OF DISTRICT LANDS
POLICY FOR DEDICATION OF DISTRICT LANDS
WHEREAS, this Board desires to reaffiim and memorialize its
policy concerning the status of District lands, now owned or later
acquired, with respect to the distinction between dedicated and non -
dedicated land:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the policy of the Midpenin-
sula Regional Open Space District concerning the status of land it
owns or administers is as follows:
1. Dedicated Land. Dedicated land means all real property or
interests therein, formally dedicated for park or open space, or both,
purposes by resolution of this Bord.
2. Undedicated Land. Undedicated land means all real property,
or interests therein, that is not "dedicated land" as defined above.
Undedicated land shall be considered to be held in a "planning reserve"
status and shall not be considered to be dedicated for park or open
space, or both, purposes within the meaning of Section 5540 of the
Public Resources Code.
Normally, undedicated lands within the District's boundaries will
be held for future dedication to park or open space, or both, purposes,
but only after the necessary planning, boundary adjustments, provision
for permanent access and other changes in configuration, which may
involve the disposal or exchange of interests in all or portions of such
lands, have been completed. Nevertheless, undedicated land may be used
on a limited basis for park or open space, or both, purposes within the
meaning of Section 5540 of the Public Resources Code.
At the time of adoption of the Interim Use and Management Plan
following acquisition, the Board shall decide by adopted motion
whether or not the acquired parcel of land is intended to be dedicated
at the time of the annual report described below. The status of each
such parcel shall also be reviewed as part of the regular land use and
management planning process, and the Board may then adopt a motion of
intention to dedicate at the time of the annual report.
An annual report shall be made in December of each year showing
which District lands are in planning reserve status. At that time,
the Board of Directors will normally dedicate by resolution any lands
which it deems appropriate, but may also dedicate lands at any other
time.
3. Transfer -Dedicated Land. Dedicated land may not be conveyed
except as provided in Section 5540, Section 5540.5 or Section 5540.6
of the Public Resources Code.
4. Transfer -Undedicated Land. Undedicated land may be conveyed,
transferred, leased, or disposed of at the sole discretion of the
Board of Directors.
5. This resolution supercedes Resolution 79-54.
Dedication Status Summary Report 2019
Preserve Dedicated Undedicat-
ed
Intended
Fee Acreage Easements on Private Land
Dedicated Undedicat-
ed
Intended
Easements on Public Land
Dedicated Undedicat-
ed
Intended
Lease and
Manage-
ment
Contribu-
tion Only
Other
Interest
Dedicated
Acres
Undedicat-
ed Acres
Total Acres
Fee , Easements and Other
1,355.15 80.12 74.30 0.00 1.93 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001,355.15 82.05 1,437.20Bear Creek Redwoods
0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 1.00 1.00Briggs Creek
507.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20507.18 1.20 508.38Coal Creek
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00Costanoan Way
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 468.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00468.00 0.00 468.00Edgewood County Park
2,902.27 5.50 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002,902.27 5.80 2,908.07El Corte de Madera Cre
1,392.83 31.87 0.00 0.12 6.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.691,392.95 39.20 1,432.15El Sereno
0.00 43.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 43.21 43.21Felton Station
211.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00211.28 0.40 211.68Foothills
735.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00735.09 4.00 739.09Fremont Older
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,227.26 0.000.00 1,227.26 1,227.26G.G.N.R.A.
3,294.92 3,035.23 2,397.35 0.17 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003,295.09 3,038.61 6,333.70La Honda Creek
1,928.41 230.99 0.00 13.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.33 0.00 14.011,941.56 284.33 2,225.89Long Ridge
274.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00274.31 0.00 274.31Los Trancos
991.63 724.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00991.63 724.00 1,715.63Miramontes Ridge
3,388.70 -11.34 0.00 34.03 28.10 24.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.37 0.00 11.893,422.73 114.02 3,536.75Monte Bello
Tuesday, January 7, 2020 Page 1 of 3
Attachment 2
Preserve Dedicated Undedicat-
ed
Intended
Fee Acreage Easements on Private Land
Dedicated Undedicat-
ed
Intended
Easements on Public Land
Dedicated Undedicat-
ed
Intended
Lease and
Manage-
ment
Contribu-
tion Only
Other
Interest
Dedicated
Acres
Undedicat-
ed Acres
Total Acres
Fee , Easements and Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 163.86 0.000.00 163.86 163.86Moody Gulch
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 5.19 5.19Other
307.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00307.89 0.00 307.89Picchetti
365.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10365.78 0.10 365.88Pulgas Ridge
3,742.23 1,250.92 84.15 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.103,742.23 1,296.02 5,038.25Purisima Creek
2,178.53 1.20 0.00 1,515.36 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 292.85 0.00 0.003,693.89 294.55 3,988.44Rancho San Antonio
273.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 98.00 0.00 0.00371.67 2.70 374.37Ravenswood
3,013.33 118.19 0.39 0.00 353.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.003,013.33 477.19 3,490.52Russian Ridge
1,345.57 201.07 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 66.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001,411.57 201.75 1,613.32Saratoga Gap
5,058.13 13,567.54 1,634.41 68.42 42.50 20.25 372.00 0.00 0.00 75.65 0.00 1.245,498.55 13,686.93 19,185.48Sierra Azul
2,051.53 10.00 0.00 80.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002,132.50 10.00 2,142.50Skyline Ridge
173.64 0.00 0.00 94.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00267.64 2.50 270.14St. Joseph's Hill
53.74 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0054.74 0.00 54.74Steven's Creek Shorelin
623.76 2.38 2.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00623.76 2.38 626.14Teague Hill
152.22 0.00 0.00 4.55 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00156.77 10.00 166.77Thornewood
707.48 952.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00707.48 952.49 1,659.97Tunitas Creek
1,304.49 80.71 78.71 5.79 0.00 0.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001,333.28 80.71 1,413.99Windy Hill
Tuesday, January 7, 2020 Page 2 of 3
Preserve Dedicated Undedicat-
ed
Intended
Fee Acreage Easements on Private Land
Dedicated Undedicat-
ed
Intended
Easements on Public Land
Dedicated Undedicat-
ed
Intended
Lease and
Manage-
ment
Contribu-
tion Only
Other
Interest
Dedicated
Acres
Undedicat-
ed Acres
Total Acres
Fee , Easements and Other
38,333.75 20,325.07 4,271.69All Preserves 1,817.56 500.00 46.35 929.00 6.82 0.00 591.20 1,391.12 35.2341,178.31 22,751.44 63,929.75
Note: Excludes acreage where "Interest Held By Other"
Tuesday, January 7, 2020 Page 3 of 3
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-12
Meeting 20-02
January 22, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Resolution to Accept Grant Funding from the State Coastal Conservancy for the Purisima-to-the-
Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility and Planning Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to execute a grant agreement with the State
Coastal Conservancy to receive $301,000 for the preparation of preliminary planning documents
for a seven-mile extension of the proposed Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and related parking area to
be located on the San Mateo County coast.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has an opportunity to receive up to
$301,000 in funding from the State Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy) in support of the
preparation of preliminary planning documents for a seven-mile extension of the Purisima-to-
the-Sea Trail and related parking area on the San Mateo County coast. Adoption of a resolution
by the Board of Directors is required to meet the grant requirements and execute the agreement.
DISCUSSION
In 2019, District staff submitted two grant applications totaling $301,264 to the Conservancy for
the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and parking area feasibility and planning project. In July 2019, the
District applied to the Conservancy’s Priority Conservation Area grant program (in collaboration
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association for Bay Area Governments),
requesting a total of $151,264. In October 2019, the District applied to the Conservancy's
Proposition 68 Grants program, requesting a total of $150,000. Due to the way funds are being
allocated between projects, the Conservancy will be using its own funds entirely for this project.
On December 19, 2019, Conservancy staff adopted a resolution authorizing the disbursement of
up to $301,000 for the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility and Planning
Project.
The Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail corridor is an approximately 15-mile regional trail that will
provide east-west connections from Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve to the San
Mateo County coast, approximately five miles south of the City of Half Moon Bay. The trail is a
critical link in the regional trail network, connecting the Bay Area Ridge trail to the California
Coastal Trail across Highway 1. When constructed, the Purisima-to-the-Sea trail will rise over
1,800 feet from the coastal bluffs along the Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail to the Bay Area Ridge
Trail west of Skyline Boulevard, offering spectacular views of the coast and the Santa Cruz
Mountains. Completion of this trail has been identified as a priority under Measure AA Portfolio
R-20-12 Page 2
03: Purisima Creek Redwoods, Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and
Conservation Grazing.
The District has been working since to 2006 to acquire a total of 1,493 acres of open space to
establish a regional trail connection between the Bay Area Ridge Trail and the San Mateo
County coast, known as Purisima-to-the-Sea. On July 3, 2019, the 240-acre Giusti (Purisima
Upland) property was transferred to the District as an addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods
Open Space Preserve, which finalized the land acquisitions necessary to complete the Purisima-
to-the-Sea Trail. The District is also exploring parking area options for the trail, which may
require an additional acquisition. Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) holds conservation and
trail easements over Purisima Farms that forms the 3.6-mile Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail,
which will allow continuation of the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail west of Verde Road to make the
connection to the Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail.
A planning study and field investigations will analyze opportunities for the final alignment of
the multiple-use public trail, pedestrian crossings, new parking area, and trailhead, while
guaranteeing sufficient buffers for nearby residential and agricultural uses. As part of stakeholder
engagement and public outreach, the District will consult with adjacent property owner(s) prior
to and during any future public trail use planning processes. Planning will also include
consultation with appropriate agencies and organizations, and public meetings to gather initial
input and comments related to any draft and final plans.
Grant Requirements
The District must adhere to the grant agreement set forth by the Conservancy (refer to Exhibit A
of the attached Resolution), which includes the submittal of regular project updates as part of
grant reimbursement requests and the maintenance of proper financial accounting. Expenses
incurred before the grant agreement is executed cannot typically be billed to the grant. The
Conservancy reimburses grantees for expenses after they are incurred. Grantees are typically
required to maintain general liability, automobile, and other forms of insurance during the term
of the grant agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Conservancy grant will represent a positive fiscal impact for a total of $301,000, on a
reimbursement basis beginning in FY2020-21. A project budget for FY2020-21 and beyond will
be adopted as a part of the annual Budget and Action Plan development process.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Submitting grant applications to secure funding is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed preparation of plans for the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail project
R-20-12 Page 3
is not subject to the CEQA pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations, section 15262, in that
it would involve only planning studies and feasibility analyses for possible future actions that
have not yet been approved, adopted or funded. The project is also categorically exempt from
CEQA under Section 15306, which exempts basic data collection and resource evaluation
activities that will not result in serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
NEXT STEPS
With Board approval and adoption of the proposed resolution, the General Manager will execute
the grant agreement. Near-term next steps for the project include project planning, feasibility
analysis, and technical studies. Conceptual plans, when ready, would be presented to the
Planning and Natural Resources Committee for review and guidance and forwarded to the full
Board for approval as the CEQA project description. Final design, environmental review,
project approval by the Board, and permitting would follow in subsequent fiscal years.
Attachment:
1. Resolution verifying the submittal of the District’s grant application and authorizing the
General Manager to execute a grant agreement with the State Coastal Conservancy to the
State Coastal Conservancy for the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility
and Planning Project.
Responsible Department Head:
Stefan Jaskulak, CFO/Director of Administrative Services
Prepared by:
Jordan McDaniel, Senior Grants & Procurement Technician
Tina Hugg, Senior Planner
Staff contact:
Jordan McDaniel, Senior Grants & Procurement Technician
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING THE GRANT OF FUNDS FROM
THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY FOR THE PURISIMA-TO-THE-SEA TRAIL
AND STAGING AREA PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has established the State Coastal
Conservancy (“Conservancy”) under Division 21 of the California Public Resources Code, and has
authorized the Conservancy to award grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations to implement
the provisions of Division 21; and
WHEREAS, the Conservancy awards grants for projects that it determines are consistent with
Division 21 of the Public Resources Code and with the Conservancy’s Strategic Plan and that best
achieve the Conservancy’s statutory objectives, in light of limited funding; and
WHEREAS, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (“applicant”) has applied for
Conservancy grant funding for the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Staging Area Project (“the project”); and
WHEREAS, the Conservancy encourages applicants for grant funding to certify through a
resolution the applicant’s approval of the application and of certain listed assurances at the time of
submission of an application to the Conservancy for an award of grant funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the applicant hereby:
1. Approves the filing of an application for funding by the Conservancy.
2. Agrees to the Conservancy’s List of Assurances, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. Has or will have sufficient funds to complete and, following completion, to operate and
maintain any property acquired under the project or to operate and maintain any facilities
funded as part of the project for a reasonable period, not less than the useful life of the
facilities.
4. Agrees to provide any funds beyond the Conservancy grant funds necessary to complete the
project.
5. Authorizes any of the following named officers or employees of the applicant or any person
holding any of the following positions with the applicant to act as a representative of the
applicant and to negotiate and execute on behalf of the grantee all agreements and
instruments necessary to comply with the Conservancy's grant requirements, including,
without limitation, the grant agreement: Ana M. Ruiz, General Manager and Hilary
Stevenson, General Counsel.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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:
Attachment 1
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Jed Cyr, Secretary
Board of Directors
Karen Holman, President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilary Stevenson, 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.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
List of Assurances
The applicant is applying for a grant of funds from the California State Coastal
Conservancy with respect to a proposed project. The applicant hereby assures and
certifies that it will comply with Conservancy regulations, policies, and requirements as
they relate to the acceptance and use of Conservancy funds for this project. The
applicant further gives assurance and certifies with respect to the proposed grant that:
1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to finance or acquire
property or to finance and construct any proposed facilities, as proposed; that,
where appropriate, a resolution, motion, or similar action has been duly adopted or
passed as an official act of the applicant’s governing body, authorizing the filing of
an application, and authorizing one or more persons as the official representative(s)
of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide additional
information that may be required.
2. It will have sufficient funds available to meet its own share of the cost for the project
that has been proposed for grant funding. Sufficient funds will also be available
when the project is completed to assure the effective operation and maintenance of
any real property acquired or facilities constructed under the proposed grant for the
purposes fo rwhich the funding was provided.
3. It holds or will hold sufficient title, interest, or rights in the property on which any
project work will occur to enable it to undertake lawful development and
construction of the project. (Documentation may be requested by the Executive
Officer of the Conservancy.)
4. It will not dispose of or encumber its title, interest, or other rights in the property
acquired or in the site and facilities constructed under the proposed grant, except
as permitted by the Conservancy.
5. It will give the Conservancy, through any authorized representative, access to and
the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the
Conservancy’s grant.
6. It will cause work on the project to be commenced within a reasonable time after
receipt of notification from the Conservancy that funds have been approved, and
the project will be carried to completion with reasonable diligence.
7. It will, where appropriate, comply with the requirements of the State Government
Code 7260 et seq., which provides for equitable treatment and relocation
assistance for persons displaced by eminent domain.
8. It will, where appropriate, comply with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
9. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Conservancy concerning special
provisions of law, and program requirements.
[1/03]
Exhibit A
R-20-13
Meeting 20-02
January 22, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
Proposed purchase of the Tabachnik Trust Property as an addition to Tunitas Creek Open Space
Preserve in unincorporated San Mateo County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 066-300-010
(portion) and 066-300-020)
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the Tabachnik Trust Property and amending
the Fiscal Year 2019-20 budget accordingly.
3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, as set out in the staff report.
4. Withhold dedication of the property as public open space at this time.
SUMMARY
The General Manager recommends purchase of the 151-acre Tabachnik Trust Property
(Property) at a price of $1,562,000 as an addition to Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. The
following report provides a description of the Property, a Preliminary Use and Management
Plan, findings of the environmental review, the purchase terms and conditions, and financial
considerations. A budget adjustment/increase of $1,562,000 to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20
budget would be required to proceed with the acquisition.
DISCUSSION
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) proposes to purchase 151-acres of two
mostly undeveloped parcels that form a part of the larger Tabachnik Trust land holdings. The
larger 211.81-acre Tabachnik parcel (APN: 066-300-010) zoned Planned Agricultural
District/Coastal Development (PAD/CD) is to be divided into a 149.27-acre open space property
that the District proposes to purchase, with Tabachnik retaining a 62.55-acre property that is
improved with a single-family home, shop, and several one-room cabins. The second smaller
parcel, an undeveloped 1.85-acre property zoned Resource Management/Coastal Zone (RM/CZ), is
also proposed for purchase by the District. A paved road provides direct access from Lobitos Creek
Road to the interior of the larger parcel. Access to the 1.85-acre parcel is via an unpaved road that
also connects to Lobitos Creek Road.
R-20-13 Page 2
This purchase advances land conservation opportunities in Measure AA Portfolio #15 for
Salmon Fisheries Conservation, and Vision Plan Portfolio #32 for additional Watershed
Preservation. The Tabachnik property includes 1,600 feet of Tunitas Creek, a perennial stream,
that supports federally threatened Steelhead trout. The property forms a connection between the
Tunitas Creek and Lobitios Creek watershed, two watersheds supporting Steelhead trout.
Property Description (see Attachment 2 - Location Map)
The proposed 151-acre Property is located between Lobitos Creek Road and Tunitas Creek
Road, approximately 1 mile east of Highway 1. The District’s Purisima Creek Redwoods Open
Space Preserve is located immediately to the north, and the District’s Tunitas Creek Open Space
Preserve is located immediately to the south of the Property. Private properties are located along
the northern and southern boundaries of the property. The Property would provide a direct
connection between the two District preserves. The Property is visible from both Purisima Creek
Redwoods and Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserves.
Land Division and Zoning Amendment
The Property purchase would be contingent upon a land division (lot-split) and a zoning
amendment with San Mateo County. As discussed above, the potential purchase includes
conducting a lot-split on the larger 211.81-acre parcel in order to create a new 149.27-acre open
space parcel and a 62.55-acre residential parcel to be retained by Tabachnik. The lot-split is
contingent on an amendment to the existing zoning that would make the PAD zoning consistent
with an exemption to the Coastal Act for land divisions in connection with the purchase of lands
by a public agency for public recreational use. The zoning amendment is anticipated to occur in
the summer of 2020, and the application review for the lot-split would run concurrently with the
zoning amendment timeline.
Land Use and Improvements
The larger 211.81-acre parcel to be split is improved with a single-family residence, garage, shed
and access roads. The proposed lot split is configured so that Tabachnik will retain the
improvements. The smaller 1.85-acre parcel is improved with a ranch road. The Property’s
terrain is moderately steep with the main improvements built on a level area near the center of
the property. The high point on the property rises to 1,000 feet, and the low point near Tunitas
Creek sits at 300 feet. Over 25 years ago, the property was grazed and farmed, but most of the
property is now covered with mature brush and no longer used for agriculture. No evidence of
hazardous materials has been detected.
Future Public Access
The Property purchase would provide a direct connection between the District’s Purisima Creek
Redwoods Open Space Preserve and its Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. Although there are
no current plans for a public trail in this area, it is physically possible to create a public trail
through the Property to connect the two preserves.
Habitat and Natural Resources Value
Along the creek tributaries on the Property are stands of sensitive Red Alder series and Arroyo
Willow series vegetation communities. The remaining Property consists of coastal scrub over
hillsides and one large stand of eucalyptus trees. The Property provides habitat for a number of
larger animal species, including deer, coyotes, bobcats, and mountain lions. A wide variety of
small mammals, birds, and other species occupy or migrate through the general area.
R-20-13 Page 3
Water Resources and Rights
A majority of the Property drains to Tunitas Creek, and a half mile of Tunitas Creek traverses the
southeast boundary of the Property. The Tunitas Creek watershed supports spawning habitat for the
threatened steelhead trout. There are also several developed springs located near the northeast
corner of the Property, and the spring water does not flow off the Property.
COASTAL ANNEXATION AREA SERVICE PLAN COMPLIANCE
The Property is within the boundaries of the District’s Service Plan for the San Mateo County
Coastal Annexation Area (Service Plan), adopted in June 2003. The Service Plan and
subsequent conditions approved by San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
established policies and procedures for conducting the District’s Coastside Protection Program
(Program). The Program guides the District’s coastal purchases, as well as the use and
management of open space land within the Service Plan Area.
The Service Plan requires solicitation of public input prior to the Board of Directors’ (Board)
consideration of an acquisition. On November 6, 2019, the District notified nearby property
owners in writing of the intent to acquire the Property and opportunities to provide comment.
On November 12, 2019, the District’s Real Property Committee held a publicly-noticed meeting
on the Property to review the proposed purchase (refer to section on Board Committee Review).
The District’s coastal land purchases are subject to a Memorandum of Understanding between
the San Mateo County Farm Bureau and the District. In accordance with the memorandum,
District staff presented information and solicited comments on the proposed property purchase at
a regularly scheduled Farm Bureau meeting on November 4, 2019 (a site visit with the executive
committee of the Farm Bureau also occurred on October 28, 2019). The Farm Bureau had
comments regarding the ability of Tabachnik to graze on the property purchased by the District
in the future, constructing a perimeter fence around the 62.55-acres retained by Tabachnik, the
exceptions to the First Right of Offer and Refusal for the retained 62.55-acres, and questions
regarding the density credits for the Property. District Staff responded that the Preliminary Use
and Management Plan would allow for the Tabachniks to graze the property purchased by the
District, that a perimeter fence may not be cost effective, that exceptions to the First Right of
Offer and Refusal included their children and other family members and provided the density
credits calculated by District staff.
USE AND MANAGEMENT
Planning Considerations
The Property consists of two parcels located in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County. The
larger parcel has a General Plan designation of Agricultural Rural, with a zoning designation of
Planned Agricultural Development/Coastal Development (PAD/CD). The smaller parcel has a
General Plan designation of Agricultural Rural, with a zoning designation of Resource
Management/Coastal Zone (RM/CZ). Natural resource management, habitat preservation, and low
intensity recreation are allowable uses within both of these land use designations. On December
11, 2019, the San Mateo County Planning Commission confirmed that the acquisition of the
Property for open space complies with the County’s General Plan.
If purchased, the Property will be incorporated into the Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve, and
a Preliminary Use and Management Plan will be implemented. When undertaken, a future
R-20-13 Page 4
planning process would analyze opportunities for compatible public use. Further environmental
review would be prepared as needed. Subsequent planning would be in accordance with the
District’s Service Plan, including consultation with appropriate agencies and organizations.
Preliminary Use and Management Plan
The Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP) establishes a status quo land management
approach in the interim between the purchase and the completion of a future long-term plan. The
PUMP includes site security and maintenance of the Property in its natural condition, as
described below. The PUMP takes effect at the close of escrow and remains effective until
changes warrant an amendment or development of a Preserve Master Plan to include this
Property. If changes to land use or the physical environment were proposed in the future, the
plan would be subject to further environmental review and public input.
Public Access: Designate the property as closed to public use at this time. Issue hiking
permit to the former owner.
Signs and Site
Security:
Install Preserve boundary and closed area signs where appropriate.
Fences and
Gates:
Install gates and fencing as necessary to prevent unauthorized entry.
Roads and
Trails:
Implement maintenance and minor erosion and sediment control measures
for access roads in accordance with District standards.
Patrol: Routinely patrol property using the access easement granted by the seller
and further described in the Terms and Conditions of the proposed
purchase.
Resource
Management:
Maintain the property in its natural condition. Conduct plant and animal
management activities consistent with the District’s adopted Resource
Management Policies and Integrated Pest Management Policies as needed.
Water
Resources:
Protect creeks, springs and seeps on the property as needed (the two
springs on the Property were developed to wildlife friendly standards).
Wildfire Fuel
Management:
Implement standard District-wide fuel management and defensible space
practices.
Coastal Service
Plan:
Operate and manage the property in conformity with the District’s Service
Plan for the Coastal Annexation Area and the mitigation measures adopted
pursuant to the Service Plan’s Environmental Impact Report.
San Mateo
County Local
Coastal
Program
The Property is within the San Mateo County Coastal Zone. Consult with
County Planning on all subsequent actions to ensure compliance with the
Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and Coastal Development (CD) permitting
requirements.
Name: Name the property as an addition to Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve.
Dedication: Withhold dedication of the subject property as open space at this time.
Because private properties are located along the northern and southern
R-20-13 Page 5
boundaries, there may be future opportunities to further protect adjacent
watershed and open space lands.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Project Description
The project consists of the purchase of the 151-acre Property as an addition to the District’s open
space preserve system and concurrent adoption of a PUMP. Minor erosion and sediment control
measures in accordance with District standards will be conducted along existing access routes to
prevent water quality degradation. Minor resource management activities may be conducted to
control invasive plants. The land will be preserved as open space and maintained in a natural
condition.
The Property is within the boundaries of the District’s Service Plan for the San Mateo County
Coastal Annexation Area. The Service Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
incorporated policies, guidelines, and mitigations to ensure compatibility with the County
General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. Actions proposed to purchase the Property and implement
the PUMP comply with the Service Plan and the Service Plan FEIR.
CEQA Determination
The District concludes that this project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Article 19, Sections 15301, 15316, and 15325 of the
CEQA Guidelines:
Section 15301 exempts the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. The PUMP for the Property
includes minor erosion control work as necessary along existing roads and minor restoration
activities to maintain the Property in a natural condition.
Section 15316 exempts the acquisition of land in order to create parks if the land is in a natural
condition, and the management plan proposes to keep the area in a natural condition. The PUMP
for the Property specifies that the land will remain in a natural condition.
Section 15325 exempts transfers of ownership of interests in land to preserve open space. This
acquisition will transfer fee ownership of the Property to the District to ensure that the open
space will be preserved and incorporated into Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The purchase price of the 151-acre Tabachnik Trust Property is $1,562,000, and it is contingent
on San Mateo County approving a zoning amendment to the PAD zoning and a lot-split of the
larger 211.81-acre parcel (creating a 149.27-acre open space parcel and a 62.55-acre retained
residential parcel). The Property would be purchased “as-is” and on an all-cash basis.
In addition to the fee property purchase, the District would execute reciprocal access easements
over the lower dirt access road (future public trail), secure a Right of First Offer and Refusal over
the 62.55-acres retained by Tabachnik, and grant spring water easements to Tabachnis for two
R-20-13 Page 6
springs located on the fee property purchased by the District (springs were developed to wildlife
friendly standards).
FISCAL IMPACT
Land acquisitions brought before the Board for approval include a budget adjustment/increase to
the adopted budget. If approved, an increase of $1,562,000 to the FY2019-20 budget is required.
Tabachnik Trust Property Purchase Amount
(including $40,000 Option Deposit) $1,562,000
Total Land purchases approved to date for FY2019-20 $55,000
Total FY2019-20 Land Purchases (if approved) $1,617,000
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 15 (Regional: Redwoods Protection and
Salmon Fishery Conservation) allocation, costs to date, and the fiscal impact related to the
Property.
MAA 15 – Regional: Redwood Protection and Salmon
Fishery Conservation
$50,728,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 12/04/2019): ($3,073,050)
Encumbrances: $0
Tabachnik Property Land Acquisition: ($1,562,000)
Projected Title, Escrow, Survey, and Misc. Expenses: ($50,000)
Portfolio Remaining (Proposed): $46,042,950
Coastside Protection Area Fiscal Considerations
The Tabachnik Property is located within the service area of San Mateo County Fire. Under the
terms of the District and County Fire Agreement, the District would pay $1,692.90, which would
increase annually by 2%.
The Property is not located within the service area of the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School
District; therefore, no fees are incurred under the School District Agreement as a result of the
proposed purchase.
BOARD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The District’s Real Property Committee held a meeting onsite on November 12, 2019 to review
information about the Property and receive public input on the proposed purchase. The District
distributed a notice of the Real Property Committee meeting on November 6, 2019 to property
owners located adjacent to or surrounding the subject property. Staff provided a presentation of
the Property, reviewed the purchase terms, and described how the Property would remain closed
and managed as an extension of the surrounding Preserve. Two members of the Real Property
Committee attended the meeting. One member was absent. No members of the public attended.
The Real Property Committee recommended forwarding the proposed purchase to the District
Board of Directors in a vote of 2-0.
R-20-13 Page 7
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act, and a copy of this agenda was mailed
to property owners of land located adjacent to or surrounding the Property, as well as the
Coastside Protection Area mailing list.
NEXT STEPS
Upon approval, staff will continue to work towards the required PAD zoning amendment and
approval of the lot split with San Mateo County. Upon approval of the zoning amendment and
lot-split, the General Manager will direct staff to proceed with the close of escrow for the
purchase of the Property and implement the PUMP. The District’s Skyline Field Office will
manage the Property as an addition to Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase and Sale Agreement, Authorizing the
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 Tabachnik Trust)
2. Tabachnik Trust Property Location Map
Responsible Department Head:
Michael Williams, Real Property Manager
Prepared by:
Allen Ishibashi, Sr. Real Property Agent
Graphics prepared by:
Nathan Greig, Data Analyst II
Attachment 1
Resolutions/2020/20-___TabachnikPurchase 1
RESOLUTION 20-__
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ACCEPTING THE PURCHASE
AND SALE AGREEMENT, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL BUDGET, AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER OR OTHER APPROPRIATE OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE AND GRANT TO DISTRICT,
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 TABACHNIK TRUST
The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby
resolve as follows:
SECTION ONE. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(District) does hereby accept the offer contained in that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement
between Mateo Tabachnik and Alessandra Centrone Tabachnik Living Trust, U/A date
September 15, 2011, 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 of the Board of Directors, General Manager, 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 Tabachnik Trust Property”).
SECTION TWO. The Board authorizes the expenditure of $1,562,000.00 covering the
purchase of the Tabachnik Trust Property, including a deposit of $40,000.00.
SECTION THREE. The Board approves an amendment to the Budget and Action Plan
for Fiscal Year 2019-20 by increasing the Measure AA Fund Capital budget in the amount of
$1,562,000.00. Except as herein modified, the FY 2019-20 Budget and Action Plan, Resolution
No. 19-15 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION FOUR. The General Manager, President of the Board of Directors, or other
appropriate officer is authorized to execute a Certificate of Acceptance and the Grant Deed on
behalf of the District.
SECTION FIVE. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is
authorized to provide notice of acceptance to the seller and to extend escrow if necessary.
SECTION SIX. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is authorized
to expend up to $50,000.00 to cover the cost of title insurance, escrow fees, survey and
miscellaneous costs related to this transaction.
SECTION SEVEN. 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Attachment 1
Resolutions/2020/20-___TabachnikPurchase 2
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:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
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
ED
ED
149.27-acres
Subject Property
APN 066-300-020
1.85-acres
Subject Property
APN 066-300-010
62.55-acres
Retained Property
T u n i t a s C r e e k E a s t F o r k T u n i t a s C r e e k
L o b it o s Creek
T u n it a s Cre e k R d
Lobi
t
o
s
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Lobi
t
o
s
C
r
e
e
k
C
u
t
-
o
f
f
October Pond
TC01
TUNITAS
CREEK OPEN
SPACE PRESERVE
PURISIMA CREEK
REDWOODS OPEN
SPACE PRESERVE
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(Midpen)
1/13/2020
Tabachnik Trust Property
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
T
u
n
i
t
a
s
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
T
a
b
a
c
h
n
i
k
\
B
o
a
r
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
_
2
0
1
9
1
2
0
4
\
T
C
_
T
a
b
a
c
h
n
i
k
_
B
o
a
r
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
_
2
0
2
0
0
1
1
3
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
n
g
r
e
i
g
0 0.50.25
MilesI
MROSD Preserves
Private Property
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.
Internal Road
Tabachnik Retained Property
Tabachnik Subject Property
Area of
Detail
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ9
ÄÆ114
ÄÆ92
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ101
Half Moon Bay
Redwood
City
San Carlos
Belmont
Foster City
San Mateo
East
Palo
Alto
Los Altos
Mountain
View
Palo Alto
EA Spring
Attachment 2