Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20200722 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 20-16
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM* Regular Meeting at 7:00 PM* REVISED A G E N D A Consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20, the Governor has allowed local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconference and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body or state body to avoid public gatherings, and has suspended all contrary provisions of the Brown Act. THIS MEETING WILL BE VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY 1. The meeting can be viewed in real-time at: https://openspace.zoom.us/j/88437309982 or listen to the meeting by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Webinar ID 88437309982). 2. Members of the public may provide written comments by submitting a public comment form at: https://www.openspace.org/public-comment • Comments on matters not on the agenda must be submitted prior to the time the board president calls for public comments. • Comments on agenda items must be submitted prior to the time public comment on the agenda item is closed. • All comments shall be subject to the same rules as would otherwise govern speaker comments at the board of directors meeting. • Electronic comments on agenda may only be submitted via the public comment form. Comments via text or social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted. Any comments received after the deadline, will be provided to the Board after the meeting. 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – STUDY SESSION ROLL CALL 1. Administrative Office Project Update (R-20-76) Staff Contact: Tanisha Werner, Senior Capital Project Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Review and provide feedback on the current project design to reconfigure and repurpose the 5050 El Camino Real building in Los Altos, California as the main administrative office for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Meeting 20-16 Rev. 1/3/20 ADJOURNMENT 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the agenda is for members of the public to comment on items not on the agenda; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. Individuals are limited to one comment 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 July 8, 2020 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Contract Amendment with Questica Ltd., to Purchase Unlimited User Licenses for Budget Management Software (R-20-75) Staff Contact: Casey Hiatt, Information Systems and Technology Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to amend the original three- year contract of $127,350 with Questica Ltd., by $44,583, for a new total contract amount not to exceed of $171,933, to purchase and maintain unlimited user licenses for the Budget Management Software through October 2022. 4. Written Response to Craig Dremann Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the written response to comments submitted by Craig Dremann. 5. Written Response to Kathy Simpson Staff Contact: Matt Anderson, Chief Ranger/Visitor Services Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the written response to comments submitted by Kathy Simpson. 6. Water Service Agreement between San Jose Water Company and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the South Area Field Office Project (R-20-82) Staff Contact: Tanisha Werner, Senior Capital Project Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to execute an Agreement with SJWC for an amount not-to-exceed $96,720.00, and to negotiate a reduction if feasible. BOARD BUSINESS Rev. 1/3/20 Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Written public comments will be provided to the Board prior to the meeting and posted on the District’s website at www.openspace.org. All written comments submitted in accordance with the guidance posted on the District’s website will be read into the record. 7. Appointment of Four Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Members (R-20-77) Staff Contact: Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Select and appoint members to serve on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee for the four vacant positions from the candidates listed in the staff report. 2. Refer review of Board Policy 1.10, Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Bylaws, to the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee for potential updates. 8. Proposed Purchase of the San Jose Water Company Property as an addition to El Sereno Open Space Preserve located in unincorporated Santa Clara County, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 510-33-001, -004, -005, -006, 510-35-004 & -005; Assignment of Purchase and Sale Agreement for the San Jose Water Company Property to Peninsula Open Space Trust; Approval of a Lease and Management Agreement (R-20-78) Staff Contact: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent, Real Property Department General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the San Jose Water Company property at a cost of $1,075,000 with corresponding authorization for a Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget adjustment of the same amount, and authorizing the General Manager, if necessary, to approve an Assignment of Purchase and Sale Agreement, and a Lease and Management Agreement, entered into with Peninsula Open Space Trust for the San Jose Water Company property. 3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the property, as set out in the staff report. 4. Withhold dedication of the San Jose Water Company Property as public open space. 9. Authorization to enter into an Agreement with the University of California, Santa Cruz to conduct a Five-Year Mountain Lion Study and Site-Specific Management Plan (R-20-79) Staff Contact: Matt Sharp Chaney, Resource Management Specialist II General Manager’s Recommendations: Authorize the General Manager to enter into an Agreement with the University of California, Santa Cruz for a base contract price of $500,000 to conduct a mountain lion collaring study for five years to assess the lion population and movement, provide annual updates and research findings at public meetings, and develop a site-specific management plan for reducing potential human-mountain lion conflicts in high risk areas. 10. Consideration of a Letter Commenting on the Proposed Redwood City Climate Action Plan (R-20-80) Staff Contact: Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager General Manager’s Recommendations: Receive a Board Member request to consider a comment letter addressed to Redwood City regarding their proposed Redwood City Climate Action Plan. 11. Oral Update on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District COVID-19 Response Staff Contact: Ana Ruiz, General Manager Rev. 1/3/20 General Manager’s Recommendations: No Board action required. 12. Consideration of a Letter of Support for a University of California Davis (UCD) proposal to Plan and Design Newt Connectivity Crossings along Alma Bridge Road in Santa Clara County (R-20-84) Staff Contact: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager General Manager’s Recommendations: Receive a Board Member request to consider a letter of support for grant funding for a Newt Connectivity Crossings Project led by the University of California Davis to provide a safe wildlife crossing across Alma Bridge Road for newts traveling from the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve area to Lexington Reservoir. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Scoping Report for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program • Inventory and Monitoring of Vegetation on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board questions to staff for information; request staff to report to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board. A. Committee Reports B. Staff Reports C. Director Reports ADJOURNMENT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION ROLL CALL 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of Case: Burkhart v. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 18CV 334473. 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 Rev. 1/3/20 I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the special meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on July 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 R-20-76 Meeting 20-16 July 22, 2020 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Administrative Office Project Update GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Review and provide feedback on the current project design to reconfigure and repurpose the 5050 El Camino Real building in Los Altos, California as the main administrative office for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. SUMMARY At the February 12, 2020 public meeting, the Board reviewed and provided feedback on the Administrative Office Project (AO or Project) design and cost estimate, which reflected a 50% complete construction document set. At the July 22, 2020 public meeting, the Board will receive a project update and provide feedback on the latest design reflecting a 90% complete construction document set, which has been issued to the City of Los Altos to begin the Building Permit process. Updates at this meeting will focus on the following elements: • COVID-19 considerations • Boardroom dais layout • Audio Visual (AV) and Information Technology • Sustainable design components (LEED benchmarks, lighting, HVAC, operable windows) • Contractor pre-qualifications process • Solicitation for peer review and construction management services • Bird Safe Window Glazing • Locally sourced/salvaged wood BACKGROUND Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has been evaluating options to address the lack of sufficient administrative office space to meet ongoing and long-term business needs since 2015, as the organization began to undergo significant internal restructuring to accelerate project delivery, expand public service delivery, and ensure sufficient resources to manage public land and access facilities. At the July 2017 public meeting, the Board adopted a resolution to enter into a purchase and sale agreement for the building located at 5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA (R- 17-90). Escrow closed on the purchase on February 1, 2019. At the December 6, 2017 public meeting, the Board approved the Space Needs Assessment & Basic Program Report (R-17-128) for the Project. At the August 22, 2018 public meeting, the Board approved a contract with the design consultant, Noll & Tam, to assess and design the new AO based R-20-76 Page 2 on the Board-approved project design goals, program elements, and space needs (R-18-97 and R-18- 100). At the October 24, 2018 public meeting, District staff and the Board began the design process for the new AO by prioritizing project goals and space needs (R-18-123). From January through May 2019, the Board held a public open house and several public meetings to solicit public input and provide feedback on the evolving schematic design options, cost estimates, and alternatives to reduce total project costs. At the May 22, 2019 public meeting, the Board approved the final schematic design and associated cost estimate (R-19-64). On the same date, the Board approved a contract amendment with Noll & Tam to continue with the remaining phases of the Project, including design development, construction documents, permitting assistance, construction administration, and as-built drawings. At the October 9, 2019 Board meeting, the Board reviewed the design development plans and revised cost estimate to confirm that the Project as designed meets the Board-approved project goals, program elements, design direction, and project budget (R-19-130). As part of this review, the Board approved the design development plans, allowing Noll & Tam to proceed into the next project phase - construction documents (detailed, constructible plans) and permitting. At the February 12, 2020 public meeting, the Board reviewed and provided the following feedback on the Project design and cost estimate, which reflected a 50% complete construction document set: • Reuse current administrative office’s flagpole; • Include sufficient power outlets at the atrium area for public and staff use; • Use salvaged redwood or acacia wood for the dais; and • Provide an update at a subsequent Board meeting on the Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC) system and sustainable design components. Throughout the project, the Board has remained informed of major design components and engaged in making decisions to provide direction on project scope and budget. Each decision made has been deliberate and transparent to the public. Below is a summary of key project decisions made since 2017. Boardroom, Atrium, and Dais • Provide a boardroom layout that maximizes the seating configuration and flexibility of use for public events and meetings, and for staff use. The dais will face the main boardroom entrance and the atrium to allow direct lines of sight between members of the public and the board. The dais will follow an arc shape for board member-to-board member visibility. • Provide a formal, attractive, and fixed dais and select other room furniture that is mobile to maximize flexibility for different public meeting sizes and configurations. • Provide sliding doors at the boardroom entrance that open up the space to the atrium area to accommodate overflow for meetings with larger audiences and higher public attendance. • Provide appropriate audiovisual technology to accommodate boardroom flexibility and allow for webcasting of meetings. • Center the public restroom on the east-west building axis location to allow easy access for the public from the main entrance lobby, atrium, and boardroom. • Incorporate the District’s logo on the dais to facilitate general public awareness. • Install a translucent partition between the Boardroom and atrium area to facilitate focused public meeting/Boardroom discussions. R-20-76 Page 3 HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) • Explore mixed mode HVAC system of passive and active air circulation for energy efficiency. • Replace existing HVAC units with high functioning, efficient units. • Provide operable windows and include sensors that turn off HVAC when windows are open to reduce energy consumption. • Provide new window glazing to improve window function and reduce heat/cold transfer and HVAC use. Exterior Site Plan • Provide an accessible ramp connecting the El Camino Real public sidewalk to the building entrance without relocating utilities while reducing tree removal. Keep existing retaining wall veneer and/or its natural aesthetics. Keep existing redwood trees where feasible. • Provide a public-friendly outdoor gathering area. • Ensure new plantings are drought tolerant native plants. • Replace the exterior T1-11 cladding where needed to protect the building from the elements. • Install an exterior metal sunshade in the rear of the building to reduce the transfer of heat and direct light. • Install new vertical office sign inset into the rock wall with the inclusion of “5050 El Camino Real” for ease of public wayfinding. • Reuse existing flagpole. • Replace existing side entrance cladding to protect the building from the elements. • Add exterior vertical aluminum panels with printed design at El Camino Real facing facades to assist with site and agency recognition/wayfinding. Building Interior • Provide an ADA accessible lobby entrance as the main egress/ingress for the public, visitors, tenants, Board, and staff. The Board, staff, and tenants will have distinct keycards to enter their respective areas for increased security. The public and visitors will check in with the receptionist at the lobby prior to going to their destinations. • Centralize the offices and conference rooms along the x and y-axis of the building to accommodate departmental needs, department adjacencies, access to natural light, privacy/noise reduction, and efficient cubicle/office space layouts. • Provide stairs from garage to first floor on the eastern side of the building for direct access to staff parking area. • Include a combination of gender neutral and gender specific restrooms. • Provide operable windows and new window glazing to allow natural ventilation, improve window efficiency, and reduce HVAC energy use. • Provide bird safe window glass pattern that is approved by the American Bird Conservancy. • Include roof/electrical connections to facilitate installation of solar panels as either an add alternate during the bidding process or as part of a separate future contract. • Use dropped acoustic ceiling tiles for the open office areas. • Provide a mix of chairs, tables, and seating in the atrium to accommodate various ages and preferences for diverse members of the public. General Project Decisions • Follow a Design-Bid-Build process to maintain a high level of decision-making throughout design and construction. R-20-76 Page 4 • Pursue the “Enhance Design Option”, estimated at between $18.7M – $27.4M, while finding as many cost effective alternatives to control/reduce total costs. • Meet as many of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold benchmarks as possible while excluding the costly and formal certification process, and proceed with CALGreen design; find opportunities to publicly communicate these goals and achievements. DISCUSSION Incorporating Board feedback for the Project, District staff and Noll & Tam have proceeded to update the construction documents and submitted a permit application with the City of Los Altos. The current project design, which the Board will discuss at the July 22, 2020 public Board meeting, reflects a set of 90% complete construction documents. COVID-19 Considerations The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way the District has been conducting business in the office, as well as operations in the field. Over the past several months, the District has formed a re- entry team to discuss ways to improve the current offices to provide a safe working environment for staff. Many of the practices and improvements are being carried over into the new AO design to maintain a safe office environment for the public and staff. These improvements along with other hygienic enhancements are listed below. The District will continue to closely monitor COVID-19 and incorporate new practices and recommended improvements as appropriate. Currently, the District is exploring the use of UV-C light and free-standing air filters to improve interior air quality, as well as setting aside a holding area for receiving packages/mail near the front desk. Hygienic Practices and Improvements for the new AO: • Installation of hygiene barriers, such as Plexiglas, at huddles spaces, conference rooms, and other gathering areas. • Selection of easy-to-clean materials and tabletops. • Effective HVAC airflow and circulation; maximizing natural ventilation through operable windows. • Frequent replacement of HVAC filters. • Purchase of flexible workstation partitions that accommodate Plexiglas extensions. • Visual cues that encourage one-way aisles and social distancing; use of subtle contrasting color grids in Boardroom carpet to facilitate safe social distancing. • Installation of touchless fixtures such as faucets, toilets, trash can, motion-sensor lights and doors, and water filling stations. • Flexible spacing of Boardroom and atrium seating for the public. • Inclusion of two outdoor meeting rooms. • Incorporation of webcasting technology in the Boardroom that facilitates broadcasting. The current design also allows for flexibility in the layout of the staff area and the ability to increase or decrease the office cubicle floor space to accommodate changes in staff deployment, expanded telecommuting, and/or additional separation of work stations. Permitting Update On June 5, 2020, Noll & Tam submitted plans, specifications, and calculations to the City of Los Altos to start the Building Permit review process. As the permitting agency, the City of Los Altos R-20-76 Page 5 will be the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and anticipates the Project to be eligible for a categorical exemption. The Project’s final construction documents will include the following main components: • Architecture (interior and exterior); • Civil engineering – grading, drainage, demolition, and utilities; • Landscape architecture – planting and hardscape; • Structural engineering – framing, seismic analysis, shear wall, beams, and columns; • Information technology (IT) – audiovisual, communication, servers, and security; and • Mechanical and electrical engineering – plumbing, HVAC, lighting, power & signal, and fire alarm. All interior and exterior improvements are consistent with the Board-approved project goals, program elements, and design direction. Project Cost Estimate The cost estimate as of July 22, 2020 has not significantly changed since the 50% construction documents cost estimate and is approximately $24.78 million, which is within the range of the Board approved project budget of $18.7 to $27.4 million. The cost estimate includes construction labor and material, design fees, permitting fees, testing and inspection, design and construction contingencies, escalation, and other miscellaneous project costs. The cost estimate will be updated at the 100% construction document level around Fall 2020 and include the COVID-19/hygienic improvements. The updated cost estimate will reflect the current economic and construction market conditions (including projected changes to construction costs related to the ongoing economic downturn). Boardroom Dais Layout At the February 12, 2020 public Board meeting, Noll & Tam presented updates to several atrium area and Boardroom design elements and renderings. Some key design ideas included: use of authentic natural materials (such as wood, cork, and stone) wherever possible; bringing the outdoors in to create warm and light-filled spaces; using natural colors found in nature; and incorporating aesthetic elements from the open space preserves to reflect the conservation and natural resource values and mission of the District. In addition, the Board also commented on the need to provide flexibility in the use of the space to accommodate a wide range of space needs (e.g. small, medium, and large public gatherings and meetings; public workshops; open houses; and formal public hearings). The main public space (public lobby, atrium, and Boardroom) will be located at the center of the building with direct connections to the parking area and public sidewalk through the entrance plaza/exterior walkway. These public facing areas will incorporate a combination of rustic and functional design and will include salvaged and recycled wood as much as possible (sources listed under the Source Wood Material section below). The lobby flooring will be of concrete with a topographic pattern extending from the plaza into the lobby that subtly communicates the range of elevations found in District public open space lands. The main lobby walls will be covered in a wood veneer with a secondary dark gray accent wall featuring a quote that embodies the District’s mission and values. The Boardroom is designed to face northerly toward the main public entrance with its back to the south face of the building, where an outdoor space and planter area will be located. Tall drought tolerant native plants will provide visual and solar shading to the Boardroom. The Board dais is proposed to be fixed while the remaining furniture will be mobile, allowing maximum flexibility R-20-76 Page 6 for other uses such as public workshops, open houses, trainings or staff meetings. On October 9, 2019, the Board provided the following input, which has been incorporated into the latest plans: • Include the District logo and source local/salvaged wood into Board dais design; • Expose raw edges of source wood to accentuate the natural aesthetic of wood; and • Provide revised frosting design concepts for the Boardroom glass partition that are subtle and integrate well with the design of the adjoining public spaces. The dais will accommodate the seven Board members, with three staff members seated at the end of the dais. This design allows for greater separation if needed by relocating staff to a separate mobile table. This separate table would be stored in the storage closet for use as the need arises. Computer hook ups and a microphone will be available at each seat. Noll & Tam will present updated design elements and renderings that include the items listed above at the July 22, 2020 Board meeting to receive any additional Board feedback and direction. The presentation will also include pictures of a mocked dais for the Board to understand the views as seen from various points at the new dais. Audio Visual (AV) and Information Technology The District and Noll & Tam have been exploring ways to enhance the Boardroom AV system to accommodate remote conferencing. The AV system will allow Board members and the public to call into meetings and/or connect to the meeting using a webcasting platform, such as Zoom. The system will record, archive, and stream audio and video. After each meeting, recorded files can be uploaded to the network for storage, playback, or streaming. When streaming a meeting via the webcasting platform, staff will designate the "Boardroom" as a meeting participant to control the webcast meeting. The audio and visual will be recorded via a dedicated computer to keep the technology and operations simple, flexible, accessible, and cost effective. The computer can be connected in the control room, at the dais, or at the presentation lectern. Installed software will allow staff to download the audio, convert it into a text stream, and save the text streams (if enabled) from public questions/comments during the virtual meeting. The public will be able to participate in the virtual meeting by accessing a streaming link on the District's website, which will be available for each meeting. The Boardroom will include commercial-grade, pan-tilt-zoom, high definition cameras for the video feed. The cameras will have a pre-set configuration, allowing for toggling between views of the Boardroom, PowerPoint presentation, and lectern, via microphone input. A dedicated camera operator will not be required to operate the cameras. The designed AV configuration will allow for the streaming of Board meetings and will be able to support broadcasting. Broadcasting, while the choice of many municipalities, has additional costs associated with it, such as the need for a dedicated operator. If District needs change in the future, and the switch to a broadcasting platform is needed, the system can accommodate it with minor adjustments. Sustainable design components (LEED benchmarks, HVAC and operable windows) The Project is currently on track to meet LEED gold rating equivalency. LEED is a point-based rating system where points can be achieved by meeting prescriptive and/or performance R-20-76 Page 7 requirements. The goal of LEED is to help building owners and operators be environmentally responsible and use resources efficiently. Due to the costs (certification and consultant fees) and time required, the District will not apply for the LEED certification, yet will design and track the Project to meet the requirements. Notable sustainable design components include: • Building located in a densely developed area with access to transit; • Energy use to be less than 10% of the CA Building Code Title 24 standards; • Building equipped to include solar panels; • Efficient fixtures to reduce indoor water usage; • Construction and demolition waste management; • Natural interior lighting; and • Operable windows and low volatile organic compound (VOC) materials for improved indoor air quality. The Project will replace the existing HVAC system with a new, energy efficient system and ductwork. A ceiling fan above the atrium will be installed to provide air circulation and cooling to the building. In addition to the large amount of ventilation air through the new HVAC system and ceiling fan, natural ventilation will be provided through operable windows throughout the building. These operable windows would function with the building’s computerized HVAC system by dividing the building into different HVAC zones. There are approximately 175 operable windows distributed evenly throughout the building. When operable windows are open in a zone, the computerized HVAC system would detect that occupants prefer outdoor air and automatically shuts off HVAC in the zone, reducing energy costs. This zone’s temperature would be controlled by outdoor temperature and airflow. Contractor Pre-Qualification Process At the February 12, 2020 Board meeting, the Board expressed a desire for staff to pre-qualify all General Contractors interested in bidding on this Project. Staff is preparing this solicitation and anticipates beginning the pre-qualification process at the end of July 2020. This process will identify a pool of qualified general contractors to bid on the project as an effective risk management tool to reduce potential problems resulting from artificially low bids submitted by contractor who are unable to perform successfully. Additionally, qualified contractors may price their bids more competitively knowing they are competing with qualified firms. Solicitation for Peer Review and Construction Management Services As the Project progresses from design into permitting, staff has determined that certain aspects of the design warrant a third party or peer review to ensure high quality Project delivery. The HVAC system is of particular interest. Staff has moved forward with securing a dedicated peer review to ensure that the HVAC system is designed to meet District needs and support a healthy work environment in light of COVID-19. The selected firm will also be tasked with providing intermittent inspection and construction management assistance services. The selected firm will work closely with the District project manager to advise on and assist with the design, construction, and occupancy phases of the Project. This solicitation process began in June 2020 and a firm will be selected in September 2020. Interpretive Planning & Design The new Administrative Office provides interpretive opportunities and integration of enhanced architectural features to engage the public and office visitors. Exhibits and other engagement elements will be professionally-designed and fabricated to connect office visitors to the District’s R-20-76 Page 8 mission, messaging, and Vision Plan goals while fostering a welcoming experience. The District will be soliciting a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an interpretive planning and design firm to develop a comprehensive interpretive approach that will be implemented at appropriate public- facing interior and exterior spaces and building elements. The RFP solicitation will be released in July 2020, and an interpretive consultant is anticipated to be selected in late August. Depending on the fee proposals, Board approval for the award of contract is scheduled for October 14, 2020. Staff plans to bring design options for the interpretive elements to the full Board for review and approval as part of this work. Board Feedback on Outstanding Project Design Elements On July 22, 2020, the Board will have an opportunity to provide final direction on the following outstanding project design elements to guide the completion of the construction documents. Bird Safe Window Glazing Noll & Tam has worked closely with the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and American Bird Conservancy (Conservancy) on the bird safety window glazing to be installed on the north side of the building. The Conservancy recently approved several bird safe glass patterns, including the options listed below. Noll & Tam recommends one of the following patterns for Board approval: • Guardian Bird1st • Walker AviProtek 1st surface Pattern 216 • Walker AviProtek 1st surface Pattern 221 See Attachment 1 for details. The Board is asked to select one of the window grazing options listed above for the project. Locally Sourced/Salvaged Wood Material District staff and Noll & Tam are further evaluating the reuse and repurposing of felled trees, stockpiled wood, and/or non-native trees identified for removal. Some architectural usage of this material includes handrails, benches, interior finishes, desks, signage, and/or the Boardroom dais. Five sources of wood are currently under evaluation. Additional evaluation is required to confirm the feasibility based on material conditions, cost (fall, transport, mill, and woodwork), and design opportunities. Below is a brief summary of each wood source, including site location, description, and suitability; note that one additional source site has been identified. The Board is asked to confirm the following wood reuse options, including the reuse of redwood logs and/or acacia wood, which will require a temporary interim veneer or exposed materials until the wood fascia material is ready for installation. • Redwood logs from La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin (new source site). In April 2020, the Board approved the demolition of an existing redwood cabin structure in the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. The Redwood Cabin was constructed in 1928 using second and third growth redwood trees. The demolition of this structure is anticipated to occur in late 2022. During the demolition, Staff will evaluate the condition of the wood to determine suitability for salvage. If the wood can be salvaged and reused in the Administrative Office, then it will be transported away from the Redwood Cabin site so that it can be repurposed. R-20-76 Page 9 Installation for this feature will occur after the March 2022 move-in date. Interim solutions until final redwood log installation occurs include leaving the interior finishes empty or installing temporary, low-cost material (similar to a veneer). • Blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) at Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve associated with 17 acres of invasive, non-native acacia located within redwood/mixed conifer forest along the planned Purisima-to-the-Sea regional trail corridor. In October 2019, two trees were felled and delivered to a local mill and lumber yard to determine the quality and feasibility of the wood. In December 2019, the wood was determined to be adequate for project design elements such as benches, interior finishes, desks, signage, and Boardroom dais. The wood is currently stored at the Foothill Field Office for drying. Staff will again review the wood in one year to assess the amount of warping and determine whether it is feasible for stairs and handrails (elements that require plum, level materials). The full cost will be presented to the Board once additional information is gathered. Restoration plan development and permitting process will require one year minimum. After that point, the milling, drying, and fabrication process will require over one year. The timeline below indicates that installation will occur after February 2023, after the March 2022 move-in date. Interim solutions until final acacia installation occurs include leaving interior finishes empty or install a temporary veneer material. Milestones Tentative Timeline Transport two felled trees to lumber yard and determined that acacia trees are feasible for project design October – December 2019 Identify trees to be used at the AO and evaluate tree permits that may be required January 2020 – September 2020 Hire consultant and develop the Restoration Plan July 2020 – June 2021 Fall trees and transport select specimens to the lumber yard for milling September 2021 – March 2022 Move-In March 2022 Storage and air-dry lumber to cure March 2022 – September 2022 Fabricate lumber to meet project specifications September 2022 - November 2022 Installation November 2022 – February 2023 • Stockpiled redwood trees at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve. Several 12 to 36-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) segments of redwood trees have been stockpiled at the preserve. These trees R-20-76 Page 10 either fell naturally or were brought down to improve traffic and line-of-sight safety as part of the construction of the newly opened public access parking lot. Mitigation measures for tree removal are being implemented separately. These redwood trees were cut into large sections that may be salvaged and reused. The quality and quantity of the wood are not feasible for furniture, stair treads, or handrail. However, the wood may be feasible for signage and lobby wall cladding. The District is coordinating with Noll & Tam to incorporate the wood into the project design. • Redwood logs stockpiled at Skyline Field Office. Several 12 to 36-inch dbh segments of naturally felled redwood trees have been stockpiled at the Preserve. These redwood trees were cut into large sections that may be salvaged and reused. The District is coordinating with Noll & Tam to incorporate the wood into the project design. • Barn wood stockpile from La Honda Creek Preserve. Old barn wood from prior demolition projects of dilapidated buildings that were removed for public safety to open lower La Honda Preserve to public access were saved and stockpiled. This material was inspected and determined as non-hazardous. Although a majority of the wood is damaged, cracked, and/or has dents from nails, some of the wood planks may be feasible for reuse on various interior walls, the boardroom dais, and the entry desk. Noll & Tam will confirm the possible use of the barn wood stockpile after an inspection and if feasible for reuse, will incorporate the wood into the project design where possible. FISCAL IMPACT At each major milestone, the District presents a revised cost estimate to ensure that the Project design remains within the May 2019 Board-approved project budget of $27.4 million (R-19-64). At this current time, the updated cost estimate is approximately $24.78 million and below the Board approved project budget of $27.4 million. The design team will continue to update the project cost estimate as the details of the project design progresses through the construction document phase. Since 2015, the District has studied alternatives for meeting the District’s long-term office space needs. These alternatives include purchasing and renovating a new building; renovating and completing end-of-life repairs (e.g. HVAC) to the current 330 Distel Circle building while also continuing to rent adjacent office spaces; and rebuilding a larger three-story building at 330 Distel Circle. Following the 2019 purchase of 5050 El Camino Real, the cost analysis indicates that renovating the 5050 El Camino Real building at approximately a $24.78 million is the most cost- effective solution to meet the District’s long-term needs, compared to $32 million to $33 million net cost for the other office space options. Funding sources for the Project include using Committed for Infrastructure reserve funds, any future additions to the reserve, rent income, parity bond proceeds, and interest earned from the parity bonds. Partial reimbursement is also expected from the future sale of the current 330 Distel Circle office. To begin the surplus property sale process of the existing building, the District issued a notice of surplus sale on November 22, 2019. The Project is not funded by Measure AA. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. R-20-76 Page 11 CEQA COMPLIANCE As the permitting agency, the City of Los Altos will be the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act and considers the Project eligible for a categorical exemption. NEXT STEPS The General Manager will direct Noll & Tam to incorporate any additional comments received from the Board at the July 22 meeting into the construction documents. The table below is an operational timeline showing current and future project milestones. PROJECT SCHEDULE WITH KEY MILESTONES Milestones Tentative Timeline Construction Documents, Permits, and Bidding October 2019 – March 2021 Construction March 2021 - March 2022 Move-In March 2022 Attachments: 1. Bird safe glazing exhibits Responsible Department Head: Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Prepared by: Jason Lin, P.E., Engineering and Construction Department Manager Tanisha Werner, P.E., Senior Capital Project Manager Staff contact: Tanisha Werner, P.E., Senior Capital Project Manager Up to a billion birds die each year due to building collisions. Twice a year, migratory birds embark on a long, cross-continental flight. But their journey is often cut short. From hummingbirds to colorful warblers, bird populations are decreasing—and glass buildings are one reason why. Birds simply can’t tell the reflection of trees and sky in façades from the real thing. Guardian Bird1st™ coated glass is the clear answer for safer birds year round. 1 Avoidance Index (AI) Scores indicate the fraction of trials in which birds flew towards the unpatterned control glass. PROTECT BIRDS WITH CLEAR RESULTS WHAT HUMANS SEE WHAT BIRDS SEE Th i s i m a g e i s a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e B i r d 1 s t s t r i p e c o a t i n g . WHAT HUMANS SEE Guardian Bird1st glass offers the right balance of solar performance, aesthetics and bird safety—so you can start designing your bird-friendly building through one trusted source. A patent-pending UV stripe coating on the first surface is virtually invisible to the human eye in dry conditions. Views remain pristine unlike traditional ceramic frit solutions, all while helping protect birds. Paired with select Guardian SunGuard® low-E coatings, Bird1st glass offers the high performance you want and need, and may help your project earn LEED Pilot Credit 55. WHAT BIRDS SEE The Guardian Bird1st UV stripe coating visually signals an impending barrier to birds and helps prevent collisions. With an acceptable Avoidance Index score1 from the American Bird Conservancy, the product follows the 2x2 rule to account for different sizes and species of birds. ATTACHMENT 1 ©2020 Guardian Glass, LLC v3.20 HELP SAVE ENERGY, HELP SAVE BIRDS Guardian Bird1st™ glass helps reach energy goals when paired with Guardian SunGuard® low-E coatings. 1. Figures may vary due to manufacturing tolerances. All tabulated data is based on NFRC methodology using Guardian’s Performance Calculator. 2. Values are for indication purposes only and are subject to variation according to conditions of measurement, manufacture and/or application. 3. Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) represents the solar heat gain through the glass relative to the incident solar radiation. MAKEUP NAME TRANSMITTANCE REFLECTANCE U-VALUE Relative Heat Gain (RHG) Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) Light To Solar Gain (LSG)Visible (τv%) UV (τuv%) Solar (τe%) Visible Solar Winter Night (Btu/hr·ft²·F) Summer Day (Btu/hr·ft²·F)ρv% out ρv% in ρe% out Bird1st with NU 78/65 (#5)76 0 48 12 13 14 0.30 0.29 139 0.59 1.29 Bird1st with SN 68 (#4)66 0 30 11 12 22 0.29 0.27 86 0.36 1.83 Bird1st with SNX-L 62/34 (#5)63 0 25 12 12 27 0.28 0.27 92 0.38 1.65 Bird1st with SNX 62/27 (#4)60 0 22 11 12 26 0.28 0.26 65 0.27 2.22 See what’s possible™ at GuardianGlass.com/Bird1st PROTECT THE BIRDS To birds, the vertical stripe coating is visible (this image is a representation of the Bird1st stripe coating). PRESERVE YOUR VIEW + To the human eye, the Guardian Bird1st coating looks transparent in most viewing conditions. DETAILS SIZE 102" x 144" (maximum) THICKNESS 6mm OPTIONS · Guardian UltraClear™ low-iron glass · Standard clear glass WARRANTY 10 years SAFETY Heat-treated and laminated 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN T E R I O R EX T E R I O R ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 July 8, 2020 Board Meeting 20-14 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, July 8, 2020 The Board of Directors conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20. All Board members and staff participated via teleconference. DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 5:00 p.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, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Resources Management Specialist II Matt Sharp Chaney President Holman announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order allowing Board members to participate remotely. The District has done its best to conduct a meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide comment. The public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to listen to this meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the meeting agenda, which was physically posted at the District’s Administrative Office, and on the District website. President Holman described the process and protocols for the meeting. 1. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Mountain Lion Conservation Efforts (R-20-71) General Manager Ana Ruiz commented on the importance of District preservation of the natural resources and native habitats, including mountain lion populations. One project aimed at protecting mountain lions is the proposed Highway 17 wildlife corridor being led the District. Meeting 20-14 Page 2 Resource Management Specialist II Matt Sharp Chaney provided the staff presentation describing the life cycle of mountain lions, preferred habitat, diet, and the ecological roles of mountain lions. Mr. Sharp Chaney provided an overview of the District’s mission statements, policies, and procedures aimed at protecting mountain lions and their habitats. Various impacts and factors influence mountain lion population size, including depredation and poaching, roadkill, disease, genetic isolation, rodenticide, and availability of prey. The legal status of mountain lions in California has changed over the years from being a bounty predator to a current listing as a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act. The District’s Highway 17 wildlife corridor project seeks to reduce deaths in an area identified to have frequent mountain lion crossings and attempted crossings. Additionally, the District has taken other numerous steps to protect mountain lions, including supporting legislation that provides protections for mountain lions, evaluating non-lethal tools to reduce conflicts between mountain lions and livestock, providing education and outreach to preserve visitors, and posting information at District preserves and on the District’s webpage about mountain lions. Using an adaptive management strategy for public safety, the District manages its response to mountain lion sightings and encounters. Mr. Sharp Chaney described the District’s partnership with the San Francisco Puma Project over the last ten years and important findings resulting from the Puma Project’s research. Finally, Mr. Sharp Chaney described future opportunities the District may have to study mountain lions. Director Siemens joined the meeting at 5:36 p.m. Director Hassett inquired regarding potential additional protections resulting from listing mountain lions on the California Endangered Species Act, such as depredation permits. Mr. Sharp Chaney stated that additional protections have not yet been determined, but some potential regulations may relate to the California Environmental Quality Act analysis or affect depredation permit issuance. Director Kishimoto inquired regarding the impact of drought and wildfire on mountain lions and whether the proposed studies will examine these impacts. Mr. Sharp Chaney stated drought and wildfire can have a profound impact on mountain lions and other wildlife, including lack of prey and water, movement of mountain lions to more urban areas, and a further decrease in genetic diversity. The current proposed studies are not planned to study the impact of drought and wildfire, however, in the event these occur, the studies will provide data related to the impact on populations from these conditions. Director Riffle inquired how we can learn if a healthy mountain lion population exists. Mr. Sharp Chaney stated a genetic metric is needed, and connectivity of adjoining populations is key to increasing genetic diversity. Director Riffle inquired regarding comments he has received regarding a population explosion of mountain lions in the San Mateo Coast region and whether the District has data that supports those statements. Meeting 20-14 Page 3 Mr. Sharp Chaney stated that the population may seem to be growing based on an increase in mountain lion sightings; however, the District does not currently have data regarding a growing population but hopes future research will provide answers. Additional sightings may be due to additional reports given the increased use of wildlife cameras, prevalence of cell phone use, and a growing human population in the wildland-urban interface area. Director Riffle inquired regarding regional coordination and cooperation related to mountain lions. Mr. Sharp Chaney reported the Peninsula Open Space Trust, Santa Cruz Mountain Stewardship Network, and other agencies are working to increase wildlife connectivity and corridors to increase permeability for mountain lions to cross freeway corridors. Also, regional partners may be able to gather additional data to learn more about the mountain lion population. Director Kishimoto left the meeting at 6:28 p.m. Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired regarding District policies and the role these play regarding other partners and agencies. Mr. Sharp Chaney reported the District shares its policies and procedures, which are often incorporated into other organization’s policies. Director Siemens commented on the importance of the Highway 17 crossing for the future of the species. President Holman inquired if there are potential legislative changes related to the application of rodenticides. Government Affairs Specialist Joshua Hugg reported legislation is being discussed at the state level but is unlikely to pass this year. The District is in discussions to have the bill move forward in the next legislative session. President Holman inquired regarding the impact of roadways on the mountain lion population. Mr. Sharp Chaney stated roadways have a significant impact due to roadkill and lack of wildlife connectivity and efforts are needed to provide as much permeable access as possible. President Holman inquired regarding deer population in the state and how that may impact mountain lion population. Mr. Sharp Chaney reported no definitive data exists regarding deer population, but current data suggests the deer population is decreasing. Public comments opened at 6:44 p.m. Patrick Noon reported that he has video of a mountain lion sighting that he would like to submit to the District. Meeting 20-14 Page 4 Sharon Negri suggested that in response to mountain lion habituation the District may consider decommissioning a trail. Public hearing closed at 6:46 p.m. Mr. Sharp Chaney stated that the District would research various options for responding to mountain lion habituation based on Board direction. Directors Riffle and Kersteen-Tucker suggested sharing the meeting presentation and additional information with the public and members of the media previously interested in mountain lions. Director Hassett commented on the District’s conservation grazing program and compensation provided to grazing tenants in response to predation by mountain lions. Mr. Sharp Chaney reported that success in the conservation grazing program and associated predation compensation may help similar programs be formed elsewhere and help the public and tenants increase awareness of the mountain lion’s ecological role in a wildlife habitat. President Holman suggested the District may want to lead a social media or public relations campaign with similar agencies regarding the impact of rodenticides on wildlife. No Board action required. President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 7:01 p.m. REGULAR MEETING President Holman called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: Yoriko Kishimoto and Pete Siemens Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Controller Mike Foster, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, 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, Information Systems & Technology Manager Casey Hiatt, Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Governmental Affairs Specialist Joh Hugg Meeting 20-14 Page 5 President Holman announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order allowing Board members to participate remotely. The District has done its best to conduct a meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide comment. The public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to listen to this meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the meeting agenda, which was physically posted at the District’s Administrative Office, and on the District website. President Holman described the process and protocols for the meeting. Director Siemens arrived at 7:09 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no written comments were submitted for this item. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Kishimoto absent) CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:11 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for the Consent Calendar. Public comment closed at 7:11 p.m. Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Kishimoto absent) 1. Approve June 24, 2020 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Award of Contract for Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting at Eight Mitigation Sites for Five Years (2020-2024) (R-20-74) General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting for the base contract price of $81,292 to monitor eight mitigation sites for five years. 2. Authorize an allowance of $20,000 to be expended only if additional mitigation sites require monitoring and reporting over the next five years. 3. Authorize a 10% contingency of $8,130 to be expended only if the eight mitigation sites do not meet permit success criteria, additional years of monitoring are required, and/or Meeting 20-14 Page 6 additional coordination with the permitting agencies is necessary, for a not-to-exceed total contract of $109,422. 4. Award of Contract to Andreini Brothers for the ADA Barrier Removal Project at Russian Ridge, Monte Bello, and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves (R-20-66) General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manger to enter into a contract with Andreini Brothers of Half Moon Bay, CA, for the base amount of $429,504. 2. Authorize a 13% contingency of $55,836 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, bringing the total contract to a not-to-exceed amount of $485,340. 5. Establish the Fiscal Year 2021 Tax Levy for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s General Obligation Bonds - Series 2015A, Series 2015B, and Series 2018 (R-20- 72) General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt Resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for each of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties to establish an ad valorem property tax levy of $1.50 per $100,000 (or $0.0015 per $100) in assessed value for the General Obligation Bonds – Series 2015A, Series 2015B, and Series 2018 (Measure AA). BOARD BUSINESS 6. Review of 2020 State of California Legislative Session – Board of Directors Briefing on Matters of Interest to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (R-20-73) Governmental Affairs Specialist Joshua Hugg provided the staff presentation and introduced the District’s lobbying representatives: Russ Noack, Julee Malinowski-Ball, and Reed Addis. Russ Noack with Public Policy Associates reported on the state of the 2020 Legislative Session, and on various legislative matters of interest to the District, including the workers’ compensation in response to COVID-19, special district challenges related to the availability of COVID-19 federal funding, and state funding and tax measures, such as the potential Proposition 13 split roll taxation (Proposition 15) and property tax transfer (Proposition 19). Julee Malinowski-Ball with Public Policy Associates provided an update regarding the 2020- 2021 California state budget, including impacts on local government, funds for wildfire prevention, preparedness, and forest health, and public safety power shutoff response, mitigation, and funding. Reed Addis with Environmental and Energy Consulting provided updates regarding Proposition 68 conservation funding, cap and trade/greenhouse gas reduction funds, wildlife corridors, various water and conservation bills, and potential funding measures. The Board requested and received clarification regarding current state and federal legislation items. Meeting 20-14 Page 7 Director Kersteen-Tucker expressed concern regarding how to pursue legislative items in future years as the legislative delegation changes and how to prioritize the various legislative pursuits. Director Riffle inquired regarding outreach and engagement of potential candidates. Mr. Hugg commented on outreach options, such as land tours, ward representative contacting the candidates representing their ward, etc. Public comments opened at 8:30 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for this item. Public comments closed at 8:30 p.m. No Board action required. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Alma Bridge Road Newt Mortality Update INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports Director Kersteen-Tucker reported the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs committee met on July 7, 2020 to receive an update on the Youth Outreach Program. B. Staff Reports Ms. Ruiz reported that a wellness survey was issued to staff to better understand their current struggles in order to develop strategies to assist employees during these difficult times. Assistant General Manager Brian Malone provided an update regarding the proposed repainting of the La Honda Red Barn and samples that can be viewed by Board members. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. Director Hassett provided comments on the recent purchases related to COVID -19 precautions and an award of contract for the ADA barrier removal project, which will promote the District’s climate action plan by selecting a company with minimal commutes required. ADJOURNMENT President adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District into closed session at 8:58 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION Meeting 20-14 Page 8 President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 8:59 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 Pete Siemens Members Absent: Curt Riffle and Yoriko Kishimoto Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Planner III Elish Ryan 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Portion of San Mateo County APN: 066-280-050 Agency Negotiator: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Negotiating Party: Ben Wright, Peninsula Open Space Trust Under Negotiation: Terms and Conditions ADJOURNMENT President adjourned the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 10:01 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 20-16 MEETING DATE: July 22, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:55.75% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount 2166 EFT 07/10/2020 *10205 - Calif Joint Powers Insurance Authority FY20-21 Annual Contribution & Retro Adj 1st Install Liab., WorkComp 256,441.00 2196 EFT 07/17/2020 10343 - Granite Rock Company Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project thru May 2020 151,577.18 81270 Check 07/17/2020 10413 - Downtown Ford M237 Ford F550 Flatbed delayed from last FY due to COVID-19 88,742.51 2193 EFT 07/17/2020 10546 - Ecological Concerns, Inc. PCR IPM Implementation - 6/20 /BCR Roads & Trails - 5/20 /Revitalize Stream,Wetland Habitats - 5/20 /Plant Install. & Maint. 3/20 - 5/20 79,143.87 2163 EFT 07/10/2020 12111 - Agbayani Construction Corporation South Area Field Office Renovation Project - May 2020 74,193.10 81244 Check 07/10/2020 11772 - Ahern Rentals, Inc.Equipment Rentals - Dozer, Excavator, Roller 5/29 - 6/26 25,912.75 2186 EFT 07/10/2020 *11216 - Santa Clara County - LAFCO FY 20-21 LAFCO Budget 18,901.07 2192 EFT 07/17/2020 10235 - Dept of Water Resources Annual Dam Fee 20-21 14,753.00 2205 EFT 07/17/2020 *10216 - Valley Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 13,494.79 81253 Check 07/10/2020 10304 - La Honda Pescadero Unified School District Tax Compensatory Fee - July 2020 13,005.69 81274 Check 07/17/2020 11927 - Forrest Telecom Engineering, Inc.Radio Communications System Assessment and Master Plan 12,740.00 81275 Check 07/17/2020 12010 - Garcia and Associates Archaeological On-Call-TO1-Deer Hollow Farm White Barn Survey/Burial Recovery 12,687.05 81263 Check 07/10/2020 11687 - Wildways Illustrated RW Interpretive Signage & Panels 12,505.60 2185 EFT 07/10/2020 12107 - San Francisco Estuary Institute Science Advisory Panel - Feb - Apr 2020 11,381.21 81267 Check 07/17/2020 10463 - Dell Business Credit Monitors (10), Laptops (5), Hardware 10,562.54 2176 EFT 07/10/2020 11998 - Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation Ravenswood Revegetation & Plant Maintenance - Apr 2020 9,630.00 2177 EFT 07/10/2020 11177 - Harris Construction Upgrades Between Tenants at Bluebrush 9,148.25 2203 EFT 07/17/2020 12107 - San Francisco Estuary Institute Science Advisory Panel - May 2020 / Stevens Ck. Shoreline Nature Study - May 2020 5,659.51 81254 Check 07/10/2020 11924 - Nomad Ecology On-Call TO1-Rare Plant Surveys, Skyline & Long Ridge OSP - May 2020 5,435.30 2194 EFT 07/17/2020 11748 - Environmental & Energy Consulting Consulting & Lobbying / Lobbying Work for WCWG - June 2020 5,110.41 81277 Check 07/17/2020 10276 - Portola Park Heights Prop. Owners Assoc.Road Maintenance Fees - 2020 4,700.00 81268 Check 07/17/2020 12134 - Digital Story Company Production of COVID-19 Safety Video PSAs 4,500.00 2206 EFT 07/17/2020 *11118 - Wex Bank Fuel for District Vehicles - June 2020 4,023.31 81271 Check 07/17/2020 11701 - Eric Gouldsberry Art Direction Budget Action Book, Budget Brochure, Revised ECDM Logo 3,982.50 2188 EFT 07/17/2020 *10128 - American Tower Corporation Repeater Lease - June - July 2020 3,980.50 2169 EFT 07/10/2020 10032 - Del Rey Building Maintenance Janitorial Services for FFO, SFO, CAO, SAO, AO Offices / Cleaning Supplies 3,938.00 2189 EFT 07/17/2020 12078 - Coastside Farmers' Markets Annual Sponsorship of Coastside Farmers' Markets 3,885.00 2172 EFT 07/10/2020 11748 - Environmental & Energy Consulting State Funding Consulting - June 2020 3,750.00 2204 EFT 07/17/2020 10143 - Summit Uniforms Uniform items - Ranger Schenk / Cowan 3,607.43 81245 Check 07/10/2020 11711 - Bay Area Metal Fabrication LLC Ravenswood Partner Signboard Fabrication 3,545.00 81260 Check 07/10/2020 11603 - San Mateo County Fire Department Fire Service Fee - July 2020 3,188.05 2167 EFT 07/10/2020 11983 - CHRISTEL, SOPHIE Community Advocacy Leadership Academy Tuition 3,000.00 81265 Check 07/17/2020 12131 - Bay Area Older Adults, Inc.10/23/19 Hike at Long Ridge OSP 2,500.00 2165 EFT 07/10/2020 *11799 - Aztec Leasing, Inc.Printer/Copier Leases - 6 machines - June 2020 2,326.07 2168 EFT 07/10/2020 11318 - Confluence Restoration Bear Creek Redwoods Plant Installation & Maintenance - May 2020 2,130.00 2182 EFT 07/10/2020 *10212 - Pinnacle Towers LLC Tower Rental Skeggs Point - July 2020 2,042.30 2200 EFT 07/17/2020 11617 - MIG, Inc.ADA Plan Update - May 2020 1,980.00 2178 EFT 07/10/2020 12105 - IBI Group Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access Study - May 2020 1,930.00 2184 EFT 07/10/2020 12031 - Ray & Jan's Mobile Truck Service Maintenance & Repairs - P104, P109, P105, P94, P98, M213 1,883.12 81257 Check 07/10/2020 12128 - Paterson Floor Coverings Inc Flooring Material for Incerpi Residence 1,750.00 2171 EFT 07/10/2020 10546 - Ecological Concerns, Inc.Purisima Creek Maintenance - December 2019 1,664.00 2181 EFT 07/10/2020 12127 - Onebytwo Global LLC AED Data Download 1,646.72 81252 Check 07/10/2020 10287 - Grainger, Inc.Door Stops - 6 heavy duty hydraulic door closures with dead stop and hold open 1,563.19 81249 Check 07/10/2020 12014 - ECAST Engineering Inc.Investigation of old water line and old remnants of spring box at N spring at Big Dipper 1,440.00 81272 Check 07/17/2020 12132 - Famous 4 Colors LLC Screen printed square bandanas, solid beige 1,380.00 81261 Check 07/10/2020 11961 - Telepath Corporation Radio & Computer Install - P125 1,317.12 81281 Check 07/17/2020 *10136 - San Jose Water Company Water Service (RSACP-EQ) (RSACP)1,227.39 81262 Check 07/10/2020 10403 - United Site Services Inc Sanitation Services at Bear Creek Stables - 4/10 - 7/2 1,214.38 2175 EFT 07/10/2020 12058 - Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Fine Scale Vegetation Map and Landscape Database Project 1,000.00 81255 Check 07/10/2020 10578 - Old Republic Title Co.Preliminary Title Report - Riding & Hiking Trails 1,000.00 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 3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 20-16 MEETING DATE: July 22, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:55.75% 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 81264 Check 07/17/2020 *10261 - ADT LLC (Protection One)Alarm Services for AO, AO2, AO3, AO4, Cristo Rey 999.41 2179 EFT 07/10/2020 10791 - LSA Associates, Inc.CEQA and Permitting Services for the Alpine Road project 943.50 81246 Check 07/10/2020 10141 - Big Creek Lumber Co Inc PC Garage Repair Supplies/Concrete/Chaulk 935.38 2199 EFT 07/17/2020 10190 - MetroMobile Communications P88 (M88) - Radio and Antenna Install 887.81 2174 EFT 07/10/2020 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Brush Cutter Repairs / Chainsaw Supplies / Weed Whip Repair 861.70 81269 Check 07/17/2020 11420 - Doug Edwards Reimbursement Livestock Water During Windmill Pump Repair 800.00 2161 EFT 07/10/2020 10001 - Aaron's Septic Tank Service Septic Tank Service (RSA-DHF)795.00 81258 Check 07/10/2020 11129 - Peterson Trucks, Inc.Service & Repairs - WT02 790.73 2190 EFT 07/17/2020 11013 - Confidence UST Services, Inc.Fuel Tank Operator Inspection / Monitoring Sys & Testing (SAO-Cristich)725.00 2187 EFT 07/10/2020 10447 - Simms Plumbing & Water Equip., Inc.Replace pressure reducing valve - 16995 Skyline 701.19 81247 Check 07/10/2020 10014 - CCOI Gate & Fence Gate Repair (SA-MT UM) (RSACP)689.94 81282 Check 07/17/2020 11493 - San Mateo Daily Journal Bond Oversight Committee Recruitment Ads - 6/6 - 6/9 640.00 81280 Check 07/17/2020 12121 - Safety Management Consultation Services, Inc.Fall Protection Needs Assessment, Instruction, and Training 585.00 2183 EFT 07/10/2020 11519 - Price, Postel & Parma LLP Burkhart Litigation - May 2020 560.50 2195 EFT 07/17/2020 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Brush Cutter Repairs/Blades & Chainsaw Repair 555.18 81266 Check 07/17/2020 11530 - Coastside.net SFO Internet Services - July 2020 550.00 81251 Check 07/10/2020 11195 - Goodyear Auto Service Center Front Tire Replacement and Wheel Balance - P97 515.27 81256 Check 07/10/2020 10397 - Overhead Door Company of Santa Clara Valley Shop Doors Repair/Adjust (FFO)512.63 2164 EFT 07/10/2020 10294 - AmeriGas - 0130 Propane at 20000 Skyline Blvd 470.20 2198 EFT 07/17/2020 10791 - LSA Associates, Inc.Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections 410.00 2180 EFT 07/10/2020 10125 - Moffett Supply Company Inc Hand sanitizer for restrooms 383.46 81259 Check 07/10/2020 10935 - Rice Trucking - Soil Farm Water Delivery at Toto 371.01 81250 Check 07/10/2020 10509 - Geocon Consultants Inc Bear Creek Dump Investigation - 4/20 - 5/17 360.00 2170 EFT 07/10/2020 11940 - Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty Water Law Counsel - May 2020 350.00 2202 EFT 07/17/2020 12031 - Ray & Jan's Mobile Truck Service Maintenance & Repairs - P98 339.82 81278 Check 07/17/2020 10093 - Rene Hardoy AO Gardening Service 325.00 81279 Check 07/17/2020 *11526 - Republic Services Monthly Garbage Service 16060 Skyline 298.50 81276 Check 07/17/2020 10189 - Life Assist First Aid Supplies - bandages, cold pack, gloves 258.00 2201 EFT 07/17/2020 12060 - Preferred Alliance, Inc.Off-Site Participants Testing - 11/2020 155.40 81283 Check 07/17/2020 10102 - Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP Legal Services - Farm Bureau - March 2020 154.00 2191 EFT 07/17/2020 12130 - Daniel G. Wenny Honorarium for Docent Enrichment Training Digital Presentation 125.00 2197 EFT 07/17/2020 11991 - Kunz Valley Trash, LLC Monthly Garbage Service - CAO / 20000 Skyline 112.75 2173 EFT 07/10/2020 11151 - Fastenal Company PPE - Face Shields 102.11 81248 Check 07/10/2020 11054 - County of San Mateo Human Resources Dept.Training 1 employee - Learn it Live: Serving Multi-Generational Customers - Whelan 85.00 81273 Check 07/17/2020 10186 - Federal Express AO Shipping Charges 34.16 2162 EFT 07/10/2020 10240 - Ace Fire Equipment & Service Inc Fire Extinguisher Maintenance 22.00 81284 Check 07/17/2020 10165 - UPS Shipping Charges - VS 17.31 924,540.87 *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 Abbreviations page 2 of 3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 20-16 MEETING DATE: July 22, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:55.75% 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 FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pres.OSP = Open Space Preserve SAO = South Area Outpost TW = Thornewood GP = General Preserve SAU = Mount Umunhum WH = Windy Hill page 3 of 3 Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-75 Meeting 20-16 July 22, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Contract Amendment with Questica Ltd., to Purchase Unlimited User Licenses for Budget Management Software GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to amend the original three-year contract of $127,350 with Questica Ltd., by $44,583, for a new total contract amount not to exceed of $171,933, to purchase and maintain unlimited user licenses for the Budget Management Software through October 2022. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) identified a business need for budget management software with robust planning and reporting capabilities to streamline annual budget development and management processes and support budget collaboration between District business lines. In September 2019, the Board of Directors (Board) approved the Award of Contract for Questica Ltd., (Questica) (R-19-121) for budget software acquisition, professional implementation services, and two years of software maintenance. The budget management software was subsequently purchased, and configuration services completed. Through the implementation process, staff identified the need to purchase additional user licenses to further streamline the budget and action plan process by leveraging the functionality and efficiencies of the software system to allow all District staff full utilization of the budget data to prepare budget plans and track project budgets. DISCUSSION Background The District historically relied on manual processes to develop and manage operating and Capital Improvement and Action Plan (CIAP) project budgets. The Budget and Analysis department works with all business lines to support budget development and annual budget management. This has largely been accomplished through heavy use and management of numerous Excel spreadsheets, emails, and content posted on the department’s SharePoint site. The District’s 2015 Information Technology Master Plan includes specific recommendations for improving staff productivity by implementing core application systems (e.g. budget management software) and eliminating manual processes, such as work-around spreadsheets and shadow systems. In furthering these recommendations, on September 11, 2019, the Board authorized the General Manager to enter into a three-year contract with Questica for budget software acquisition and professional implementation (R-19-121). R-20-75 Page 2 During FY20, Questica software was configured and implemented to streamline budget development and management, allowing for unlimited budget scenarios, tracking changes in real time, enhanced functionality, and cross-platform collaboration. This software increases visibility, quality, and productivity while reducing the potential for human error. The software integrates with the District’s existing Enterprise Resource Planning System (i.e. New World Systems), tracking budget-to-actuals in near real-time. Need for Additional Users The original contract included enough user licenses for the District’s current department budget representatives. However, as the implementation team learned more about the software’s full capabilities, many new time-saving features were identified that require additional user licenses to leverage. Among these include extending the software to streamline the action plan development process and allowing more staff, beyond department budget representatives, to participate in the collaborative process of developing, maintaining, and tracking the District’s budget. This web-based software allows for approval of department and project budgets by management, as well as comprehensive action plan project list development. The purchase of unlimited user licenses will increase the overall efficiency of the Budget and Action Plan development and management process, as well as allow all District staff to fully utilize their budget data to prepare budget plans and track project budgets. Vendor Selection District staff conducted a thorough assessment of industry budget software and Questica was identified as the vender of choice, due to an intuitive user interface, the ability to manage complex capital project budgets, and competitive pricing both with implementation and ongoing maintenance. Numerous public agencies in California use Questica, including the Cities of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Escondido, Temecula, Concord, Thousand Oaks, and Oceanside. This software was procured through cooperative purchasing (or “piggybacking”) based on the City of Escondido Request for Proposal. Section IV.C of Board Purchasing Policy 3.03, Public Contract Bidding, Vendor and Professional Consultant Selection, and Purchasing Policy provides that the District may “join in cooperative purchasing agreements with other public agencies (e.g., the State of California, counties, cities, schools, or other special districts) to purchase goods or services at a price established by that agency through a competitive bidding process.” This provides cost savings to the District and reduces staff time required to conduct an extensive bid process. In this case, the City of Escondido issued an extensive solicitation for budget management software. They received four proposals and interviewed two of them. This resulted in Questica being selected for its robust functionality and competitive pricing. FISCAL IMPACT The original quote for unlimited user licenses was $235,000, of which District staff underwent a 3-month negotiation process resulting in a $190,417 discount. With this discount, purchasing unlimited user licenses is $4,017 less than the cost for buying the desired number of additional individual user licenses. The recurring annual maintenance cost of $30,250 is less than other competitor’s budget software costs and less than the District’s current enterprise systems costs with unlimited user licenses. R-20-75 Page 3 Software Comparison of Annual Cost for Unlimited User License of Other Software OpenGov (Budget Software Competitor) $72,000 ESRI GIS (Current District Enterprise System) $45,000 Cityworks Asset Management (Current District Enterprise System) $45,000 NWS ERP (Current District Enterprise) $36,000 There are sufficient funds in the adopted FY21 Budget to cover the cost of the recommendation. It is projected that there will be sufficient funds to cover the cost of the recommendation in future fiscal year budgets, which will be adopted as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. A summary of the contract expenses for three years is shown in the table below. Questica Contract: FY20 Expenses (7/1/2019- 6/30/2020) FY21 Expenses (7/1/2020- 6/30/2021) FY22 Expenses (7/1/2021- 6/30/2022) Total Budget Software ORIGINAL CONTRACT Software purchase $34,850 $0 $0 $34,850 Annual hosting 9,000 9,000 9,000 27,000 Professional software configuration services 48,000 0 0 48,000 Annual maintenance 0 8,750 8,750 17,500 TOTAL $91,850 $17,750 $17,750 $127,350 AMENDED CONTRACT – Unlimited Users Additional annual maintenance $0 $12,500 $12,500 $25,000 Additional annual maintenance discount 0 (10,417) 0 (10,417) Net additional annual maintenance 0 2,083 12,500 14,583 Unlimited users (one-time fee) 0 210,000 0 210,000 Unlimited users (one-time fee) discount 0 (180,000) 0 (180,000) Net unlimited users (one-time fee) 0 30,000 0 30,000 NET TOTAL $0 $32,083 $12,500 $44,583 TOTAL AMENDED 3-YEAR CONTRACT $91,850 $49,883 $30,250 $171,933 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW A Board Committee did not previously review this item. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE No action required. This is not a project under CEQA. R-20-75 Page 4 NEXT STEPS Upon Board approval, the General Manager will direct staff to amend the contract with Questica to purchase additional users for the Budget Management Software. Responsible Department Head: Casey Hiatt, Information Systems and Technology Manager Prepared by: Casey Hiatt, Information Systems and Technology Manager Elissa Martinez, Management Analyst II Contact person: Casey Hiatt, Information Systems and Technology Manager From: Jennifer Woodworth To: Kirk Leninoton; Brian Malone; Cotv Sifuentes-Winter Cc: Ana Ruiz Subject: FW: M Board Members - Board Contact Form Date: Friday, June 5, 2020 9:43:49 AM From Mr. Dremann From: <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 5:58 PM To: Clerk <clerk@openspace.org>; General Information <info@openspace.org> Subject: All Board Members - Board Contact Form EXTERNAL Name * Craig Dremann Select a Choice * All Board Members Email Location: (i.e. City, Address or District East Palo Alto Ward) Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone) Comments: Sent to District Land Management, to get data, in order to make comments on EIR-- I want to send another Public Comments for your Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR, and have run into a paradox about the District's management for the past 25 years, and see if there is any before - and -after project data, to support any more grazing or fires? 1.) FIRES BEFORE -and -AFTER cover transects? -- For Russian Ridge or any of the other Preserves where the District has intentionally had fire set in grasslands, do you have any before -and -after vegetation transects, that show that fire really does improve the natives? Why I am asking that question, is because the vegetation -cover transects that I have conducted at Russian Ridge from 2003 to date, have measured that the burn conducted there in July 2007 CalFire illegal burn destroyed 2 million native plants, and the burn created empty spots, where 3 million weeds moved in to fill those spots? Any before -and -after vegetation cover transect data, available for the illegal burns conducted in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2007 or 2009? The fire -killed environmental native plant resources that existed at Russian Ridge before the fires, included 200,000 Sitanion grass plants, 156,000 Nassella pulchra plants that were lost in the fires, 32,000 Melica grasses, 20,000 Festuca grasses, 20,000 Koeleria grasses, 500,000 annual tarweeds, 500,000 owls clover plants, 400,000 Layia wildflowers, 224,000 White Yarrow plants, 160,000 Amsinckia plants, 52,000 lupines, 40,000 native Plantago, 40,000 miners lettuce, 40,000 coyote mint plants, 40,000 California poppy plants, 40,000 blue eyed grasses, 12,000 popcorn flowers, 12,000 buttercups, and 10,000 Farewell to Springs! From my Russian Ridge transect cover data, the weeds that were spread by the CalFire illegal burns at were, 808,000 Italian thistle plants, 527,622 Harding grass plants, 152,000 yellow star thistles plants, and 2 million wild oats plants. 2.) GRAZING BEFORE-and-AFTER cover transects? -- For any of the Preserve with grasslands that have been grazed in the past, or are currently being grazed, do you have any before-and-after vegetation cover transects, to show that those grazing projects are actually improving the native plants instead of destroying them? Without that before-and-after data from your own grazed preserves, it will be very difficult for your District to justify continued grazing until you do those studies, and it would be premature to include grazing in your EIR as an alternative that has any environmental track records supporting its use? 3.) ANY GRASSLAND cover transects available from your agency, so you can analyze the "NO PROJECT" alternative? -- In order to include the CEQA required "No Project" alternative, the District should have done like I have, and measured vegetation cover year-after-year to determine what happens in your grassland preserves without any projects, so that a proper "No Project" alternative analysis can be conducted. The paradox that I have encountered at Russian Ridge, is for many years after the July 2007 CalFire illegal burn, the grassland native species that were damaged by the fire continued to decline, for four more year. But since no projects have been done at the north end of Russian Ridge since 2007, then, starting in 2011 and in the last nine years, the native plants in the grasslands are recovering on their own. So the paradox is that, every method your District used in the past to manage grasslands, that you want to continue to use like fires and grazing, destroys the natural resource--whereas the "No Project" method has been the most successful method to manage the native plants and the fire-fuel weeds in those grasslands? However, if my "Special Mowing method to Unearth Dormant Native seeds" is included in your EIR as an alternative, that works about 5 times faster to restore the grasslands and eliminate the fire fuel, than the "No Project" alternative already does? So if you could please send any copies of any before-and-after vegetation cover transects (1.) Fires conducted on the Preserves? or (2.) Grazing projects? Look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Craig CELL From: Jennifer Woodworth To: Kirk Leninoton; Cotv Sifuentes-Winter Brian Malone Cc: Ana Ruiz Subject: FW: M Board Members - Board Contact Form Date: Friday, June 5, 2020 10:12:02 AM Email from Mr. Dremann From <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 10:10 AM To: Clerk <clerk@openspace.org>; General Information <info@openspace.org> Subject: All Board Members - Board Contact Form EXTERNAL Name * Craig Dremann Select a Choice * All Board Members Email Location: (i.e. City, Address or District East Palo Alto Ward) Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone) Comments: In order for your EIR to be adequate, for the proposed "Wildland Fire Resiliency Program", and to justify the continued and/or future use of grazing or prescribed fires for grassland management on ANY of your preserves, a minimum amount of management data needs to be provided to you and to the public in the EIR. That way, we can ALL (including your management team) see what the use of the dozen or so fires has done to the resources, and has the use of domesticated animal grazing, damaged or improved the native plant resources to date? Fortunately, I have been producing some of that data independently since 2003 at Russian Ridge regarding the impact of prescribed fires on the native grass natural resources, and it has been extremely damaging --to the point that certain species of native grasses were so damaged by the July 2007 fire, that they went extinct --Which I hope that everyone on the Board will agree, THAT is the worst way to manage a resource, when your management project causes the resource to go extinct? You can see my chart at https://www.ecoseeds.com/1-mid-Den-nativearass-trends.Dna -- And your land management team should be able to produce the exact same kind of charts, to show the before -and -after effects on all of the dozen or so burns that have been conducted over the past 25 years on your preserves, along with the CEQA required data that shows the "cumulative effects" of the fires. Likewise, this kind of chart should be able to be produced for the EIR, to show the before -and -after effects of grazing on the grassland habitat of EVERY preserve where any domesticated animal grazing projects have been conducted in the last 25 years? Also, your EIR should be able to provide, for every preserve that has grassland natural resources, a vegetation cover censuses that were done at least every 5-10 years, so that the Board members and the public can see what the trends are, regarding the native grasses and wildflowers, and also show the different important grassland weeds and how they may be increasing over time. You can see a grassland vegetation cover survey that I did in August, 2006 on nine of your District's grassland preserves, at https://www.ecoseeds.com/1-mid-pen-preserve-surveys.png and measured the percentage native grasses, wildflowers, Harding grass and Yellow star thistle. 14 years ago in the areas of the preserves where I did my surveys, three of the preserves had good wildflower cover--Foothills Open Space had 39% cover in wildflowers, and Windy Hill 36% and Skyline Ridge 26%. But Fremont Older and Rancho San Antonio had zero, and Long Ridge, Monte Bello and Los Trances preserves my transects measured at 3-5% wildflower cover. So, included in the EIR should be detailed grassland vegetation cover surveys, ideally that have been done once a year for the past 20-25 years, on every preserve with grassland habitat that currently needs to be managed for fire-fuel safety. Without a significant amount of data showing the before-and-after data for the effects of the various prescribed burns that have been conducted over the last 25 years, or before-and-after vegetation cover data, for the preserves that have been grazed, then you and the public will not have enough information to determine if fires and grazing can legally be included as a fire-fuel management program in the future? Since native grasslands and wildflower fields are our most Endangered ecosystems in California, your District needs to take much more care, and have enough data, so that you take special care of that resource, and stop making mistake like burning and grazing, that has caused the death of millions of native plants, and in some cases, cause parts of that rare resource, go extinct? Without that extremely important "before-and-after data" plus periodic vegetation survey of your grassland resources, your agency could make the same mistakes over and over again, as was made in July 2007, when the burn at Russian Ridge cause the destruction of 2 million native plants, and they are only recovering now, 13 years later, picture of the burn, then the weeds swamping the wildflower the next spring at https://www.ecoseeds.com/1-mid-pen-2007-burn.png Respectfully Submitted, Craig Dremann From: Brian Malone To: Brian Malone Subject: FW: All Board Members - Board Contact Form Date: Friday, July 10, 2020 9:34:37 AM From: <po-replyna wufoororn> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 10:31 AM To: Clerk <clerk(& openspace.org>; General Information <infona openspare.org> Subject: All Board Members - Board Contact Form EXTERNAL Name * Select a Choice * Email * Craig Dreniann All Board Members Location: (i.e. City, Address or District East Palo Alto Ward) Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone) Comments: * Recently, I requested from the District managers, copies of all of the supporting "before -and -after" documents for the analysis of the effects of bums that have been conducted since 1996 on the District's grasslands, AND all of the supporting "before -and -after" environmental effects of grazing projects that have been done on the district's grasslands, and received only one document so far. I requested these documents, so I could comment, if the district has sufficient data to be able to analyze those alternatives. It is a very important part of CEQA, whenever a project is conducted that may have a negative impact on a resource, and that could cause severe and cumulative damages, that before -and -after monitoring is done for each project of that type, like fires in grasslands and grazing in grasslands. Apparently the "Russian Ridge 2014 Pilot Vegetation Data" is the only supporting document for the Program to consider the alternative of using fires, to produce a goal of wildfire fuel reductions in the grassland portions of the district's preserves, but it is such a inadequate document, that it cannot be used to support that alternative. The reasons are as follows: 1.) MOWING ALTERNATIVE NEVER INVESTIGATED but was PHOTOGRAPHED on page 21. The difference between where the areas had been burned in 2009 and not bumed were insignificant when the study was done five years later, and the only area that was significantly improved, was the third alternative that has not been considered yet. The photo on page 21 "Figure 14 shows LAYPLA and other forbs (including nonnative Erodiuum) persisting in a mowed road verge." And other than that photo, there is no other mention in the report, that the mowing produced the best results to produce a practically fire -fuel -free result! The results of the mowing shows that the flammable weed grasses are gone, the wildflowers have returned, and essentially zero fire fuel, isn’t that the whole goal of this program? When you evaluate the 19 burned plots, the average amount of total exotic cover in the burned plots was 68% whether it had been seeded or not, whereas in the seven unburned plots, the average amount of flammable exotic cover was 71%, which are statistical dead-heats, and these comparisons were not disclosed anywhere in the report. Any burning in District grasslands, may temporarily rearrange the vegetation components in those grassland, but within five years or less, those grassland ecosystems resettle back to their original exotic cover conditions—because the fires never impact on the weed seeds already in the soil. What was not evaluated is the best alternative, the mowing, that was fortunately photographed, producing dramatic and successful results. When you compare the unmowed are in the photo, it visually matches what the report is indicating, about an average of 80-85% exotic tall-growing fire-fuel plant cover, and you can see struggling in the weeds, the 15-20% wildflower and native grass component. However, in the mowed area, close to zero fire-fuel weed grasses are seen, plus a lot of bare soil that is going to stop fires, then the low growing exotic Filaree and a lot of tidy tips that when they dry out for summer, produce close to zero fire fuel? 2.) Nothing in the report evaluates the POUNDS of FIRE FUEL per acre. The comparison was never made in the report, of any changes in the amount of pounds of fire fuel--only looked at the percentage of cover of each kind of plant. In terms of using this report for a fire-fuel reduction program, it is completely useless, as the picture on page 21 "Figure 14 shows LAYPLA and other forbs (including nonnative Erodium) persisting in a mowed road verge," is clearing showing the managers, the Board and the public. The difference in the photograph of the cover of the low-growing filaree in the mowed area surrounded by wildflowers and bare soil, is very close to the lowest fire fuel you can produce in district grassland. And when compared to the unmowed are in the photo’s background are 2-3 foot tall flammable wild oats, and those wild oats are adding ONE TON of fire fuel per acre for every foot tall they grow each spring. The difference is close to zero for mowing—compared to burning or not burning, producing one ton of fire fuel per acre for every foot tall the exotics grow? 3.) EIR must be shelved, until fire-fuel per acre data is available for each alternative. Under CEQA a study is legally needed to be completed by the District, on the amount of FIRE FUEL per acre is produced by the different alternatives, before this EIR can legally move forward. This study only looks at changes in cover, which the burn really did not significantly change, and did not look at changes in the amount of fire-fuel per acre. Currently, the district has ZERO studies that can be used to evaluate ANY alternatives that could be used to reduce fire fuels in the district’s grasslands. And without the data to do the analysis of the alternatives, this EIR must be shelved, until the managers, Board and the public have that data, so the various alternatives can be fairly evaluated. 4.) NO GRAZING before-and-after DATA? Since the district apparently does not have any before-and-after grazing data, the public should assume that grazing will NOT be included as an alternative to fire-fuel reductions, because it cannot be fairly evaluated. And without that data, the current grazing projects may be illegal under CEQA, because no monitoring is being done each year, to see if the project is improving the native grass and wildflower resources, or severely damaging them. And there have been no studies by the district, to measure in their grasslands, the amount of robbing of soil nutrients that the grazing is doing-- like soil organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus and calcium-- When the cows uptake those nutrients to build their bones and muscles, could deplete the soil below the levels needed for native seedling survival, or potentially make damaging changes in the soil pH? 5.) Out of the 10 conclusions on pages 16-17 of the 2014 Russian Ridge report, only ONE of those, #8 can be used by the District for ANY grassland management projects, because there is no data presented in the report, and no references to data that exists elsewhere, to support any of the other management-action conclusions. Conclusion #2 “Fire has provides higher quality grassland based on native species cover.” Not true, based on the data presented in this report, no significant statistical changes between burned and unburned. Conclusion #3 “Seeding native perennial grasses in the early 2000s worked well, and had long-lasting effects (more than a decade). BROCAR and ELYGLA did the best.” However, no before-and-after data presented for those seeded area, whereas my vegetation transects in the north end of the preserve 2003-2020 indicate the original wildflower fields that existed were permanently damaged wherever those aggressive native grasses were sown. This is a case where massive environmental damages are being done, when the wrong native seeds are sown, to destroy the original resource that the District is supposed to not destroy under CEQA. Conclusion #4 “For slopes too steep for drill seeding, hand seeding may be appropriate.” Once again, no CEQA analysis or before-and-after data, to show that native seeding of these aggressive native grasses are destructive to the very resource that the district is supposed to preserve and protect? Conclusion #6 “Native annuals cannot effectively compete with non-native annual grasses without continual disturbance by fire and/or mowing, or the presence of naturally bare soils.” Absolutely ZERO supporting data for this conclusion, and since any evaluations of “Craig’s Special Mowing Method to Unearth Dormant Native Seeds” was not included in this report, then this conclusion is inadequate, because Craig’s Method DOES have native annuals compete with non-native annual grasses, WITHOUT continual disturbance by fire and/or mowing. Conclusion #8 is the only management-action conclusion of this report that is correct, “Small-scale trials with mowing should be designed and executed, as this method can target non-native annual grasses and give suppressed perennials opportunities to expand and occupy more space.” This is one of the key features of “Craig’s Special Mowing Method to Unearth Dormant Native Seeds” that is able to unearth dormant native seeds still in the soil underneath the weeds, so they sprout up and take the place of the weeds, usually at 10-20 seedlings per square INCH. Conclusion #9 “Hydromechanical obliteration (HMO) is an effective method for enhancing native perennial grasses and forbs where they are already present.” Not true, and no data presented here, plus no reference to data outside of the report. Measuring the results of the company writing this report, on their hydro-mechanical project at Edgewood Preserve, they could have presented that data to support this conclusion. However, when they conducted two plots in spring 2012, and within three years, the conditions went back to the same amount of exotic cover, 80-88%. Any successful grassland management project in Central California should be producing a 20-25% increase in native plant cover each year, until you achieve between 90-98% native cover within 4-5 years. And when you get to that performance standard of 90-98% native cover, you essential have very close to zero fire-fuel that way. 10.) “In the long run, the only way to continually control non-native annual grasses is grazing, especially by cattle that selectively graze high nutrient annual grasses.” This is the most outrageous unscientific statement and conclusion I have ever read in any study, since I have been a professional restoring 800 acres of native grasslands in California since 1992? No data is presented to support this massively sweeping conclusion. And, since I did not receive any before-and-after vegetation studies from the district for any of the grazing projects they have in progress right now, that indicates to the public that the district is not following CEQA in doing any before-and-after vegetation monitoring transects, to evaluate the successes or failures for those projects to achieve their goals, and to monitor the effects of grazing on the district’s resources? Plus, the Conclusion #10 does not check for changes that grazing can produce in the soil nutrients and soil pH. So MY conclusion for this EIR comment, is that the entire EIR process should be shelved, and the district conduct the proper studies for each of the alternative methods they want to utilize to achieve the goal of measured pounds-per-acre fire-fuel reduction in the native grasslands and wildflower fields of their preserves. Plus, there needs to be an analysis of the different methods, along with reduction of fire fuel, which ones produce the least damage to the native wildflower and native grass resources? And the goal of this project, when it is conducted in any grassland habitat in the various preserve, should be stated as the recovery of the original wildflower fields and native grass cover, and as low as possible the percentage cover of exotics? That goal, or whatever goal this project is trying to achieve in district’s grassland habitats, should be put up front. And then, the alternatives analyzed and the best method chosen, that will achieve the goal in the shortest amount of time, with the least amount of native resource damages? Respectfully submitted, Craig Dremann CELL From: Jennifer Woodworth To: Kirk Leninuton• Cot/ Sifuentes-Winter: Brian Malone Cc: Korrine Skinner; Ana Ruiz Subject: FW: M Board Members - Board Contact Forrn Date: Monday, June 29, 2020 8:49:57 AM From: <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 3:39 PM To: Clerk <clerk@openspace.org>; General Information einfo@openspace.org> Subject: All Board Members - Board Contact Form EXTERNAL Name` Select a Choice * Email * Craig Dremann All Board Members Location: (i.e. City, Address or District East Palo Alto Ward) Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone) Comments: * My reply to Coty's letter this week, who was replying to my Ombudsman email from six months ago, and I never heard from the district's ombudsman. ever — Dear Coty. Thank you for your six -page reply, to my questions that I submitted to your ombudsperson six months ago, and instead of writing those six pages, you could have answered in a single sentence — "Our District does not have ANY Before -and -After measured data from any of our grassland rnarnagement projects from any of our grassland preserves, which is a huge violation of CEQA, to be able to evaluate any of the various grassland weed management alternatives, for our -Midland Fire Resiliency Program EIR—Even though we have been conducting burning and grazing projects for 25 years without ever gathering any before -and -after measurements, to evaluate if those methods are working or could be potentially destroying. or having a cumulative negative effect on the very native grass and wildflower resources we are supposed to be protecting?" Fortunately, since 2003, I have been gathering that data along the northern portion of Russian Ridge, that shows the Before -and -After effect of the illegal bum conducted by CalFire, that killed two million native plants, that were then replace by two million weed? And Mid -pen has no data to confirm or deny what I measured after that bum? If your district does not have any before -and -after data for the past bum and grazing, projects, how can you follow the CEQA guidelines at Cal. Code Reg. Title 14, Section 15355, where you are supposed to look at your projects and their "Cumulative impacts". which refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together. are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. I will reply to your different letter headings: Reduction in California Grasslands – None of those items listed have been confirmed with scientific experiments and measured data, and are only speculations as to the reasons why there has been a 99.9% spatial extinction of the California grasslands and wildflower fields in California, and is now the most endangered habitat in our State. The only way you determine what reasons actually did the destruction, is by restoring a grassland-wildflower field back to 95% or better native cover with diversity, then, you see why most of those reasons that you listed do not apply. Midpen’s Land Management – A lot of abstract words, but no on-the-ground before-and-after measured data or results of any grassland or wildflower field management. Monitoring of Treatment Sites – Once again, you do not provide any on-the-ground and before-and-after measured data here? When I say that the burns caused the “extinction” of plants within my measured transect at Russian Ridge, I mean that within the transect route, native plants that existed before the burn, were killed within that route, and the fire causing the spatial extinction of that species in that area, that have never recovered since the illegal burns over the last 13 years. Use of Prescribed Fire and Conservation Grazing – Once again, you are only presenting abstract theories on the effects of fires and grazing? Apparently you cannot supply any before-and-after data to support that these projects are improving the resources, even though your District has been conducting burns and grazing on your preserves for 25 years, may your district forgot to monitor those projects? Your district does not know, after 25 years of projects, if the burns and grazing have been destroying the resources, or as my before-and-after measured data is showing for the burns at Russian Ridge, is destroying the wildflower and native grass resources by the millions of plants? Effect to Ecosystems due to Treatment – I am not generalizing on the effects of grazing, only that your district has no clue one way or another, because after 25 years of projects, have not even started to do the CEQA required before-and-after detailed vegetation transects, to determine what the results are? And Mid-pen SHOULD expect to convert the weeds in the grasslands, back to the original wildflower fields and native grasses, because dormant native seeds exist under every square foot of your grassland preserves that were never plowed in the past, and in massive amounts, about 200 pounds per acre, that will come up and replace the weeds at 10-20 native seedlings per square inch. That conversion is happening right now in the north end of Russian Ridge this summer, where I have been conducting my transects since 2003, native seedlings sprouting up because the wild oats seedlings could not sprout during the February- mid-March drought this spring. Soil Nutrients – Once again, no before-and-after soil nutrient studies done before and after grazing, PLUS no before-and- after burn soil tests done either on any of the Mid-pen preserves, even though you have been conducting projects for 25 years? It is a huge stretch in your letter, to refer to studies in Kansas—we are not in Kansas anymore--I started working on grasslands in Kansas last year, and there is ZERO comparisons with California grasslands for nutrient, soil organic matter, plant species, and rainfall patterns. Now, if your district repeats that Kansas experiment and had some measured data, that might mean something, but pulling that Kansas data out of thin air, does not mean anything until it has been tested on your district’s grasslands. Seed Bank – Referring to a 1997 study was written before my paper was the first ecological restoration project in the nation, to discover over 100 dormant native species in June 2002 for the cover article of the Ecological Restoration journal at https://www.ecoseeds.com/shaw.pdf -- and we estimated those native seeds were between 100 and 250 years old— including two that were unknown to science. Plus, we discovered there was a massive amount of those dormant seeds in the soil---enough on Michael Shaw’s 70 acres at 300 Byers Lane in La Selva Beach—that the whole property went from 99%-weed covered to 95% native covered in only a few years, without sowing a single seed? All of the projects I have done since Shaw’s in grassland and former wildflower fields in California, ALWAYS have dormant native seeds in the soil, and the seedlings in places will be as thick as 10-20 seedlings per square inch. Fuel Levels – Once again, not a single measurement from any of your grassland and wildflower field areas of what the different areas produce in terms of fire fuel? If you go out and measure the wild oats on any of your preserves right now, after for every foot tall they grow, produces 2,000 pounds of fire fuel per acre. Whereas, a field of tidy tips and native grasses, will only produce 100 pounds of fire fuel per acre. So, at Russian Ridge wherever you allow the wild oats to grow three feet tall, you have 3 TONS of fire fuel per acre vs. only 100 pounds if you still have the wildflower fields instead. And, your district has never done any measurements with a recording pyrometer—Where you remove an intact square foot of the different grassland vegetation in summer, and set it on fire in a safe place, and record the duration and temperatures that the different fire fuels produce? Then, you can accurately, compare the higher temperatures and durations produced by the exotics vs. the very fire-safe natives? Tubbs fire – The fire was initially spread by the weed grasses within the oak woodlands, and my cousin Mitch saw that weed grass straw--that had been cut earlier in the year but still laid on the ground--burn his neighbor’s home to its foundation in the Bennett Ridge subdivision east of Santa Rosa. Next Steps – “Although you have indicated that you do not desire to provide the District the necessary information on your land management technique” --- that is completely untrue. We have been in discussions for two years, to try my method on a small scale, but the answer has always been, that you do not have the money—Then, usually about a week after you tell me that, I get a post card that you are giving a $450,000 contract to another company? You have also only last month, put up more barriers to ever trying my method, and here are the comments I wrote to the Board, about Mid-pen putting up barrier to getting a license and testing my special mowing methods— Your District managers, have intentionally kept my method out any of the CEQA alternative analyses, whenever you review all of the alternatives for grassland management projects. In the May 21 letter from Coty Sifuentes-Winter wrote, “As new science, technologies, and/or methodologies become available, Midpen staff reviews data and analysis to determine whether it can be applied to Midpen’s land management.” But the District managers know that this statement is completely false, because my method has never been reviewed or tested, ever since your District managers learned about the method and visited the Shaw project site over 20 years ago? Now, the District is placing new barriers, to exclude my method in the current analysis, when Coty wrote in his May 21 letter, “The science needs to be reproducible, scalable, and practically applied uniformly by District staff, contractors and partners” and that is no problem, because my methods have been used to restore 800 acres of California grasslands so far, and within ten years or less able to bring those grasslands back to close to 100% native cover? And, the other arbitrary barrier that the District is placing, to not include my method in the EIR analysis, is when Coty wrote, “Midpen..can only broadly adopt new management techniques once they reach a level of general scientific acceptance.” That is not any excuse, for not including my method within the current EIR analysis—there are 800 restored acres worth of my projects in California today? And any ecological restoration professional, could quickly compared each of those projects, with the unrestored weed patches that exist just beyond the borders of those projects—and see within the boundaries of the projects the excellent and diverse native cover that was produced, using my alternative methods? As a comparison, none of the operating systems and none of the computer programs and none of the apps that any of the Mid-Pen land managers have loaded into any of your agency computers or any of your smart phones--none of those needed to jump over that arbitrary barrier, of being “broadly adapted, only after they reached a level of scientific acceptance.” You loaded all of those operating systems, and programs, and apps., and you agreed to a licensing agreement, and then, you run those systems, programs and apps, because they worked. You did not need any scientist to sprinkle any holy water on those computer items, before you accepted them for use? And then, in the May 21 letter, Coty put up a third barrier between my alternative method, and your District--in that someone ELSE must sprinkle scientific holy water on my method, before your District will consider it or include it as an alternative? Coty wrote: ”Once demonstrated to be scientifically accepted and reproducible by others proven techniques may then be eligible for increased funding based on Midpen budget priorities.” (I added the underlines). CONCLUSION—Your district, your EIR currently MUST be shelved, because you do not have any data, to in order to evaluate the different alternative methods for grassland and wildflower for your proposed Wildland Fire Resiliency Program. Your district MUST start producing their own before-and-after burn and grazing project-measured results. That data should have been collected over the last 25 years of conducting those projects, as CEQA requires, so if you start now, you might be able to continue with this EIR in 3-4 years. And when you continue with your EIR, your district absolutely must include my method as one of the alternatives when you do your review, but I do not see any movement by you district to negotiate to obtain a license to test my method now or in the future? Only last month, three arbitrary barriers was put up by you, that my method must be scientifically accepted and reproduced by others, before your district will test it? And then for the last two year, your district has been broke? Sincerely, Craig Dremann CELL July 22, 2020 Dear Mr. Dremann, Thank you for contacting the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Board of Directors (Board) numerous times in June. This letter is in response to emails you submitted to the Midpen Board on June 4, June 5, June 18, and June 26, 2020. On June 4, 2020, Midpen received and fulfilled your request for before-and-after cover transect data for grassland management work (see Attachment 1). Within Midpen’s written response, staff also noted as a reminder that data on past projects was previously provided to you over the years dating back to 2003. Additionally, staff has requested clarification on your most recent request for new transect cover data, which you have not yet provided. To help us provide you with the correct additional information, please clarify whether you are requesting additional new records or another copy of the prior data we have previously provided to you in prior years. Please notify the District Clerk with the specific types of documents that you are seeking to ensure delivery of the documents of interest. In further response to your inquiries on Midpen’s grassland monitoring efforts, Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter has prepared an informational memorandum to the Board regarding the Inventory and Monitoring of Vegetation on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands, which is also attached to this response for additional relevant context (Attachment 2). Please note that Midpen staff forwarded your Board correspondence on June 5, 2020, June 18, 2020, and June 26, 2020 (in addition to the May 24, 2020 correspondence) to the Project Manager for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program to be included in the compilation of public comments received on the Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process. Staff is reviewing all comments received from the public related to the EIR and responding appropriately as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Of particular note, Midpen respectfully disagrees with your statement that it should not proceed to analyze the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program because of how Midpen has analyzed monitoring data on its own lands. It is clearly established under California law that Midpen’s EIR must evaluate a range of alternatives that will feasibly meet the project objectives. CEQA does not establish any absolute legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR. Midpen will consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation as part of the EIR that is under preparation. DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD APPROVAL 2 Furthermore, while your request to include your “Special Mowing method to Unearth Dormant Native seeds" in the EIR as an alternative has been noted, please be aware that the EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. Rather, the range of alternatives required to be evaluated in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” -- the EIR will evaluate a range of alternatives to permit a reasoned choice. What constitutes a “reasonable range” will be guided by the purpose of evaluating those alternatives that confer substantial advantages over the project proposal while meeting the project objectives (including resource enhancement to fire dependent species), which may be “feasibly accomplished in a successful manner” considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved (See California Pub. Res. Code sections 21002, 21061.1 and CEQA Guidelines section 15364). Feasibility in the context of grassland management under the Program for Midpen must consider annual direct costs, annual staff resource requirements, net habitat benefits, and ability to effectively replicate the tools, practices, and approaches across more than 10,000 acres of grassland habitat on Midpen preserves. Again, it should be clear that Midpen intends to fulfill its obligations to provide a thorough and legally robust evaluation of alternatives under CEQA, and its responses to public comment will be incorporated into the draft Program and CEQA documentation where appropriate. Sincerely, Board President Karen Holman CC: Board of Directors General Manager Ana Ruiz Senior Resource Management Specialist and Project Manager Coty Sifuentes-Winter Attachments 1. Staff Response to Public Record Act Request [Letter to Craig Dremann] 2. Board Informational Memorandum on the Inventory and Monitoring of Vegetation on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD APPROVAL June 15, 2020 RE: Request for “Cover Transects” Dear Craig Dremann, Midpen received your request for more information via the Board Contract Form on June 4, 2020. This letter serves as an initial response to inform you that we are compiling the records you requested, and to ensure that we provide the information that you are seeking. You requested data on before and after “cover transects” for sites where Midpen has conducted 1) prescribed fire, 2) conservation grazing, and 3) “no project”. Please note that Midpen provided you the data on Russian Ridge on July 29, 2009 per your request from July 20, 2009. Let me know if you would like us to provide that data again. Since that time, we have collected additional data via a contract with Creekside Center for Earth Observation (https://creeksidescience.com/). This report is attached. Annual transects are only one of many ways to monitor grasslands. Among other things, Midpen also prepares an annual Integrated Pest Management Report to the Board of Directors. Please see this link for the latest report available on the District’s website: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Midpen IPM Annual Report 2018.pdf. I will review Midpen’s electronic files and provide all records of cover transect data, but I do not believe Midpen has this data in electronic form. Midpen’s older documents maybe in paper form and are not available electronically. Request for copies of document is subject to a charge of $0.10 per standard letter page and I will let you know in advance of the costs of reproduction. I will contact you within two weeks with any electronic records as well as the costs for reproduction of documents. Respectfully, Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Sr. Resource Management Specialist csifuentes@openspace.org Pronouns: he, him, his Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 (650) 691-1200 | Main Line A greenbelt system in the San Francisco Bay Area comprised of over 60,000 acres in 26 preserves www.openspace.org Attachment 1 From:Brian Malone To:Brian Malone Subject:FW: Larry Hassett - Ward 6 - Board Contact Form Date:Wednesday, July 8, 2020 10:54:51 AM From: Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 11:09 AM To: Clerk <clerk@openspace.org>; General Information <info@openspace.org> Subject: Larry Hassett - Ward 6 - Board Contact Form EXTERNAL Name *Kathleen Simpson Select a Choice *Larry Hassett - Ward 6 Email * Location: (i.e. City, Address or District Ward) Skyline Blvd across from Russian Ridge, next to Coal Creek, Clouds Rest Vista Lot Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone) Comments: * Hello Mr Hassett, We are the residents who live along Skyline near Russian Ridge and Coal Creek. We have been fighting the dangers and the nuisance of the Clouds Rest Vista Point for over 3 years. Chris Baressi of Open Space has been the primary contact. WIth Covid, CalTrans has closed the Clouds Rest lot. Open Space is allowing the dangerous practice of having people park on the side of the 55mph highway which leads to a lot of horns during the day as people back out directly on the highway, and do illegal 3 point and u-turns. In addition, it is setting a precedent that it is okay to park in the Open Space driveway at night because the Clouds Rest lot is closed. The ongoing nightly disturbances continue and now are coming because people are parking on Open Space property. RWC CHP does not have the manpower to enforce in a timely manner. Imagine being woken up nightly and being kept up between 1 and 3 am. I have asked Chris Baressi (before he was OOTO) what Open Space is going to do to let people know that they cannot park on the premises or along the road at night. I have not had a response. Please take action. Open Space is responsible for this. It is clear this is a popular area. We have asked Open Space through Chris Baressi to add a parking lot to Russian Ridge - at least get it in the 5 year plan. I would have thought the residents’ needs are in line with Open Space’s desires: No smoking or fire at the vista, No litter, No vomit/condoms that the hikers have to trip over the next day or explain to their children, a safer crossing for hikers. We have had requests into CalTrans for years for: stand alone No Smoking signs, hiker crossing signs, a reduction in speed limit given the many uses (hikers/cyclists/cars/slowing to park or look at view), and Quiet! Residential Area signs. I have not heard Open Space pushing CalTrans to adopt these measures. Why? Last night, there were fireworks set off from the Open Space driveway. Fire is the number one danger up here - to Open Space, the wild life who inhabit the area, and to residents. If Open Space does not take action and the neighborhood goes up in flames or continues to be vandalized or there is a drunk or reckless driving incident, we will hold Open Space as a contributing party. Please let us know what Open Space will do to address these issues. Regards, Kathy SImpson July 22, 2020 Re: Cal Trans Clouds Rest Vista Point Dear Ms. Simpson, Thank you for expressing your concerns about the Clouds Rest Vista Point on Highway 35 that is located adjacent to Coal Creek Open Space Preserve and across the highway from Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. The current roadside parking on the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve side of the highway is within the highway right-of-way and is not owned or controlled by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen). Although Midpen does not have ownership or jurisdiction over the Cal Trans Vista Point, we remain interested in its management as it affects our preserves, visitors, and neighbors. Midpen staff, primarily through Skyline Area Superintendent Chris Barresi, has been continuously engaged in discussions with you, Cal Trans, California Highway Patrol, County Sheriff’s Office, County Supervisor Don Horsley, Senator Jerry Hill, and others regarding the parking issues at this site. Midpen is familiar with the challenges for parking along Highway 35 and the ongoing issues with the Cal Trans Clouds Rest Vista Point, which have been exacerbated during the COVID pandemic. We remain committed to continuing our work with partner agencies and resident stakeholders in exploring solutions to the concerns you have raised. As you know, Midpen staff have been involved with Cal Trans in designing improvements to the Clouds Rest Vista Point parking area, and based on information provided to us by Cal Trans, we believe that construction on improvements to the parking layout are expected to begin soon. We are also currently commenting on the Cal Trans pedestrian plan https://www.catplan.org/district-4 to request a formal Highway 35 crossing with highway/pedestrian safety improvements to improve overall safety for anyone who may be crossing the highway between the preserve and the vista point parking area. In addition, in conjunction with California Highway Patrol and San Mateo County, Midpen rangers have posted and will continue to enforce and maintain No Parking signs in narrow and blind roadside areas on Highway 35, adjacent to our preserves, where roadside parking poses a safety concern. Moreover, Midpen staff has requested additional “No Fires” and “No Littering” signs at the Clouds Rest Vista Point parking area; please note that Cal Trans approval is required since Midpen does not have authority to install them unilaterally on Cal Trans property. When Cal Trans opens the improved Vista Point parking DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD APPROVAL 2 area, Midpen will work with Cal Trans to determine if additional parking restrictions along the highway are appropriate. At this time, Midpen has not identified the need for additional parking areas at Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve, which currently offers two formal parking areas for access. However, we continue to monitor use to determine if additional parking or other visitor-serving amenities are necessary. The current COVID pandemic has certainly increased use levels given the many restrictions that still exist across the Bay Area and public health guidelines on the safety of recreating outdoors in open space. However, it is too early to tell at this time whether use levels will be sustained or whether levels will return to 2019 levels. As stated earlier, we continue to monitor use across all 24 open space preserves that are open to the public to understand how use levels may change in the coming months. Thank you again for raising your concerns to us and for your continued work on improving roadway safety at the Cal Trans Clouds Rest Vista Point parking area. Sincerely, Karen Holman Board President DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD APPROVAL R-20-82 Meeting 20-16 July 22, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Water Service Agreement between San Jose Water Company and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the South Area Field Office Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to execute an Agreement with SJWC for an amount not-to-exceed $96,720.00, and to negotiate a reduction if feasible. SUMMARY The General Manager recommends entering into a Water Service Agreement (Agreement) with San Jose Water Company (SJWC) to bring potable water service to the South Area Field Office, located at 240 Cristich Lane in Campbell. Bringing water service to the site is a requirement for building occupancy; the available potable water service is owned and maintained by SJWC. The existing water service line does not meet current code and projected building usage requirements. The approved construction documents for this project identify the installation of three water services: 1-inch irrigation, 2-inch domestic, and 6-inch fire (sprinkler system). The project’s general contractor will install the services onsite within the building shell and SJWC will install the services offsite on Cristich Lane, including the connection to their water main on Cristich Lane. This Agreement will allow SJWC to install the site’s three water services, abandon the existing ¾-inch domestic water service, and ensure the Project’s adherence to local fire protection requirements. Given the unexpected cost, the General Manager will direct staff to negotiate a price reduction if feasible with SJWC. BACKGROUND The site for the new South Area Field Office is located in a light-industrial zone in the City of Campbell. The main building is a “butler” metal building constructed in the 1960’s with a footprint of approximately 5,600 square foot. The building previously served as a repair shop for buses and has had several unfinished and unpermitted interior upgrades throughout its life. The original enclosure of the building is galvanized corrugated metal with visible wear and tear on its windows, doors, roll doors and skylights. There is also one (1) semi-built, unpermitted equipment storage structure on the property. One existing ¾-inch water service line services the property. Water service is available at the project site by SJWC, the area’s water utility provider. In August 2019, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) received permit approval from the City of Campbell (City) to repurpose the industrial building located at 240 Cristich Lane in Campbell as the District’s new South Area Field Office (SAO or Project). In October 2019, the Board of Directors authorized the General Manager to enter into a contract with Agbayani R-20-82 Page 2 Construction Corporation (Agbayani) for a not-to-exceed total contract amount of $4,133,350 (R- 19-138) to deliver the Project. Agbayani’s main scope of work includes interior insulation and space reconfiguration, exterior building siding and roof repair, paving and parking restriping, new vehicular gate, site lighting, security fencing, drainage and utilities improvements, and material and equipment storage. Agbayani’s work is about 50% complete. All demolition work is complete, and the new sanitary sewer and storm drain utilities are installed. Structural steel framing and foundation improvements are complete on the inside of the building. In August 2020, the building siding will be removed and replaced, and the parking lot improvements will be installed. DISCUSSION During design development, District staff was made aware that the existing ¾ - inch water service line did not meet current code and projected building usage requirements. During this time, the design team evaluated the water service requirement for the site. Given the size of the building, and its commercial building status, a 2-inch domestic water service was required for the new use. This necessitated the requirement to abandon the existing ¾-inch water service and design a new 2-inch water service. The code also required a fire protection system (fire sprinklers) and the design of a new fire service water line to feed the sprinkler system, which the existing building did not have. The new landscaping required a separate irrigation service; a 1-inch separate service was designed for this purpose. The construction documents accounted for these requirements and the new services were shown on the City of Campbell permit drawings. Due to cross connection/contamination requirements, all three services must be in separate trenches. SJWC is the water utility company for this service area. Staff has been coordinating with SJWC to facilitate Agbayani’s work and bring water service to the Project site. The approved construction documents require the installation of the three services: fire sprinkler water service, domestic water service, and irrigation water service. The 1-inch irrigation service will provide water to the landscaping throughout the site. The 2-inch domestic water service is required for the water inside the building (faucets, toilets, sinks, etc.); the domestic service is sized based on the number of fixtures that use water inside the building. The 6-inch fire service is required to feed the new fire sprinkler system. The fire sprinkler system is a code requirement and its sizing was determined from the size of the building and number of sprinkler heads required. A summary of the SJWC service fees is provided below. Staff is asking for approval of these fees. Staff did not expect this level of cost and will attempt to negotiate with SJWC on a fee reduction. This item is coming to the Board, because the fees exceed $50,000. 6-inch Fire Protection Service 61,310.00 $ 2-inch Domestic Water Service 10,252.00 $ 1-inch Irrigation Service 7,403.00 $ Abandonment of existing 3/4-inch domestic service 2,275.00 $ Tax 15,480.00 $ Total 96,720.00 $ A $12,000 deposit has been issued to date R-20-82 Page 3 To finalize the agreement with SJWC, the District is required to comply with the following: •Submit the Agreement fee balance (currently at $84,720, unless a reduction can be negotiated) •Execute the Agreement •Submit approved fire sprinkler plan by Santa Clara County Fire Department or a letter of indemnification accepting full and financial responsibility for the size and location of the fire protection service Staff is requesting authorization to enter into the Agreement with SJWC and submit the requisite fee. The fire sprinkler plans are currently under review by Santa Clara County Fire Department; their review is expected to take four weeks. Given the time for County Fire to review and approve the fire sprinkler plans, the District is also required to submit a letter accepting the possibility of further costs if there are subsequent changes to the plans. The intent of the letter (attached to this report) is to direct SJWC to proceed with scheduling their work. If the District chooses not to enter into this Agreement with SJWC, water service will not be provided from SJWC and the District will need to find another way to bring potable water to the Project site. Moreover, without potable water service, the building cannot be occupied. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended Agreement is within the overall South Area Field Office (project #31601) project budget. Agbayani’s construction work is expected to be completed under the Board approved budget and contingency. Funding for the project continues to be available via the 2017 Parity Bond and/or in the Committed for Infrastructure Reserve Fund (total of $4.1 million) and lease revenue from the SAO property ($128,189). During the project design and permitting process, the District leased the property to the prior owner to secure lease revenue prior to entering into construction to offset project costs. The table below shows the total project budget. The recommended actions are shown in the fiscal year they are expected to incur. A budget adjustment will be forthcoming to roll unspent project funds from FY20 forward to FY21 (as a reminder, the project experienced a delay in FY20 due to earlier COVID-19 construction restrictions). Furthermore, staff will continue to monitor project expenditures closely to determine if a future budget adjustment will be needed for this additional expenditure or if project savings will be sufficient. South Area Field Office Project #31601 Prior Year Actuals FY2019-20 Adopted FY2020-21 Adopted FY2021-22 Projected Estimated Future Years TOTAL Project #31601 Budget $324,978 $1,302,976 $3,164,326 $0 $0 $4,792,280 Spent-to-Date (as of 10/07/2019): ($324,978) ($43,972) $0 $0 $0 ($368,950) Encumbrances: $0 ($22,291) $0 $0 $0 ($22,291) Agbayani Construction Corporation Contract (including Bid Alts #5 and 7): $0 ($2,034,500) ($1,494,500) $0 $0 ($3,529,000) 15% Contingency: $0 ($305,175) ($224,175) $0 $0 ($529,350) Agbayani Construction Corporation Contract (Bid Alternate #1): ($75,000) $0 $0 $0 ($75,000) R-20-82 Page 4 Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 ($1,177,962) $1,445,651 $0 $0 $342,689 The project is not funded by Measure AA. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE District staff prepared a Categorical Exemption for the project and determined that the project would not result in any impacts to the environment. The District found that the proposed refurbishment and improvements at 240 Cristich Lane and its subsequent use as a field office and corporation yard are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, 15302, 15303, 15304, and 15311. Section 15301 – Existing Facilities: The project proposes interior and exterior alterations to the existing industrial building that would involve a negligible or no expansion of use. The project will generate vehicle trips equivalent to the trips of the previous occupancy and would not result in any significant traffic impacts. The proposed modifications will not substantially change the site’s function as an industrial building with employees and surface parking. Section 15302 – Replacement or Reconstruction: The project includes the demolition and removal of an unfinished wooden accessory structure, and construction of a new storage building (250 sf) and shed (700 sf) of substantially the same purpose and capacity at the same location. Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures: The project includes construction of new storage building (250 sf) and shed (700 sf), replacing an unfinished accessory structure at the rear of the site. Section 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land: The project includes new landscaping and minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. There will be no extensive grading on site. Section 15311 – Accessory Structures: The project includes the placement of an on premise sign and flagpole that would be appurtenant to the District’s facility. A Notice of Exemption was filed with the County of Santa Clara on July 21, 2017 and was posted for a period of 30 days in accordance with CEQA. As a Responsible Agency under CEQA, the City of Campbell concurred that the project qualified for a categorical exemption at the time the City issued the Conditional Use Permit. NEXT STEPS The table below lists the remaining project milestones. Upcoming Milestones Target Dates November 2019 Written Notice to Proceed issued by District R-20-82 Page 5 September 2020 Deadline for Substantial Completion Fall 2020 Project Completion and Close Out Attachment: 1. San Jose Water Company Water Service Agreement 2. District Letter of Indemnification Responsible Department Head: Jay Lin, Engineering and Construction Department Manager Prepared by: Tanisha Werner, Senior Capital Project Manager 1265 S. Bascom Avenue San Jose, CA 95128-3514 Writer's Direct Line: (408) 279-7874 Email: jim.bariteau@sjwater.com July 13, 2020 Tanisha Werner, P.E. Capital Project Manager III Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 REFERENCE: Building Renovation Project 240 Cristich Lane, Campbell APN 412-32-014 Dear Ms. Werner: As requested, our Engineering Department has prepared final plans and a final estimate of cost for the installation of the water facilities required for your project. Our plans and cost estimate are subject to review and revision after 30 days. The total estimated cost is $96,720. Your $12,000 engineering deposit will be credited against this total if you sign our agreement and have us proceed with construction within six months from the date of this letter. Please review our plans that have been enclosed for your information. The following table is a breakdown of our estimated costs. They are based on a normal construction sequence of underground utilities (i.e., water facilities construction to follow sanitary and storm lines, with joint trench for PG&E, etc. to follow water). Additional costs will be incurred if joint trench is present prior to our installation. 1 - 6" Private Fire Protection Service $61,310 1 – 2" General Metered Service 10,252 1 – 1" General Metered Service 7,403 Retirement of Existing Service 2,275 CIAC Tax Gross-Up 15,480 TOTAL $96,720 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 Tanisha Werner July 13, 2020 Page Two We want to make you aware of the revision to the Internal Revenue Code with the passage of the 2018 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This act requires that all Contributions in Aid of Construction (CIAC) and Advances for Construction (AIC) received after January 1, 2018 be taxed as income to the utility. The CIAC Gross-up tax rate is 19.6% and applies to the installation of the Private Fire Protection Services and the General Metered Services requested for this job. Information regarding this federal tax rate can be found in the modified Rule 15 indicated on Exhibit B attached to the agreement, which is also on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. Attached is an Agreement covering the work outlined above. If you would like to proceed with this proposal, PLEASE SIGN AND LEAVE UNDATED, and returned with a deposit in the amount of $84,720 (final estimate less $12,000 engineering deposits) via either a check or an ACH or Wire Transfer (a PDF copy of the instructions is attached for your information). Upon acceptance and execution of the agreement by this company, a copy will be e-mailed to you. In addition, PLEASE SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN TO US THIS LETTER WITH YOUR SIGNATURE AS YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF YOUR FURTHER OBLIGATIONS TO EFFECTIVELY COMPLETE THIS PROJECT. Also, indicate where monthly billings should be sent. Monthly billings for Private Fire Protection Service commence at completion of our installation. Monthly billings for General Metered Service commence upon installation of the meters. A copy of our rate schedules are indicated on the website link https://www.sjwater.com/customer-care/help-information/billing-schedules for your information. Please keep in mind that it is your responsibility to contact our Customer Service Department, at (408) 279-7900, when you are ready to close your accounts on the services being retired. Unless we are contacted, you will continue to receive a bill on those accounts and be liable for payment. To continue or cancel any auto-payment processing, ebill, epayment transactions, or any other related programs associated with your accounts, you also need to contact our Customer Service Department. As noted on the plans, it will be your responsibility to install an approved Reduced Pressure Principle (RPP) type backflow prevention assembly on the proposed 6" Private Fire Protection Service. This assembly must be installed above ground immediately following the service connection. You also need to install an approved RPP type backflow prevention assembly on all the proposed General Metered Services. These assemblies must also be installed above ground immediately following the connections (meters). Any deviation from the locations indicated must be approved in advance by our Backflow Prevention Department. SJW requires that all backflow devices be lead free and USC Foundation for Cross Connection Control and Hydraulic Research approved. Important information about backflow requirements including a link to Foundation for Cross Connection Control and Hydraulic Research's approved device list can be found on our website at the link: https://www.sjwater.com/for_your_business/builders_contractors/backflow. DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 Tanisha Werner, P.E. July 13, 2020 Page Three Note: If fire sprinklers are required, and you plan to integrate your fire department connection (FDC) into the backflow prevention assembly, make sure the location is acceptable to the fire department. It may be that the required location of the FDC differs from the required location of the backflow assembly, thereby making the integration infeasible. The RPP assemblies must be installed before we will allow water use through the services. To initiate service you must contact our Backflow Prevention Department, at (408) 279-7872, who will perform a field inspection and test. Please provide them with 24-hour notice. A field inspection will be made by this company prior to commencement of service. Also, the pressure within the project site could be in the range of 78 - 95 PSI, we recommend that you also install a pressure regulator on your piping at a location that will not allow pressure in excess of 80 PSI to enter the building. It will be your responsibility to connect your private piping to our service connections. Please contact your plumber regarding this matter. So we can avoid preliminary inspections, we would appreciate your written notice as to when curb and gutter, lot line boundary stakes, and rough street grading will be completed. No schedule can be established for installation of the facilities until such preliminary work is completed. It will also be your responsibility to install a Separation Barrier between the proposed utilities and the existing water main pursuant to our Standard Drawing Sep-Bar for all crossings which have less than 12 inches clearance. The separation barrier must be inspected by our Construction Department. If it is determined in the field that a crossing has less than 6 inches clearance, please contact San Jose Water Engineers before proceeding. We will also need written encroachment permission for the installation of our meters and meter boxes. Please have the property owner(s) sign and date the enclosed Encroachment Permission Letter and return it to this office. Facilities cannot be installed without this letter. Finally, please submit one copy of the FIRE SPRINKLER UNDERGROUND PIPING PLANS APPROVED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT OR A LETTER INDICATING THAT THE DISTRICT WILL ACCEPT FULL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE. Your job will not be released for scheduling without this information. Furthermore, since our plan and estimate are based on an unapproved plans, any changes made to this item due to approval requirements may result in the need for us to re- engineer our installation. You will be responsible for the cost of additional engineering and water facilities, if so required, and associated time delays. DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 Tanisha Werner, P.E. July 13, 2020 Page Four In summary, if you would like us to proceed with the installation, please provide us with the following: 1) An ACH or Wire Transfer in the amount of $84,720. 2) A digitally signed and dated copy of this letter that includes the address where monthly billings should be sent. 3) The attached agreement, digitally signed, but left undated. 4) Fire Sprinkler Underground Piping Plans approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department or a Letter of Indemnification accepting full and financial responsibility for the size and location of the Private Fire Protection Services. The installation work will begin approximately 8 - 12 weeks after the aforementioned items are received by this company. This time is needed to secure labor, materials and the Utility Encroachment Permit from the City of Campbell. Once the permit is obtained and provided there are no construction delays, our Engineering Department will then prepare a job release package to our Construction Department who will set up a Pre-Construction Meeting with you and/or your Construction Representative prior to scheduling the installation work. Causes beyond our control shall include halting of work to prevent threatened damage, injury or loss due to a widespread epidemic, pandemic, or other public health emergency. As a final note, please be aware that you cannot make pressure tests of your piping against our facilities. If you are required to make pressure tests of your underground piping, please cap the piping to perform the test, and do not use our valving to test against. This applies to both the Private Fire Protection Service and General Metered Service connections. If you have any questions, please contact this office at (408) 279-7874. Sincerely, James R Bariteau JAMES R. BARITEAU Senior Water Services Representative JRB: NB19-041 (Final).doc Enclosures cc: Nektarios Matheou, Kier & Wright Civil Engineers & Surveyors, Inc. (e-copy only) Jay Lin, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (e-copy only) DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 Tanisha Werner, P.E. July 13, 2020 Page Five ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED MONTHLY BILLINGS TO: Firm (Responsible Party) Name Signature Address Print Name City Title Zip Code Date Phone Number DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 Est. No. Date Received_________________ AGREEMENT Between Midpeninsula Regional Park Open Space District and San Jose Water Company DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 Form18 1 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY FIRE MAIN EXTENSION, HYDRANT AND/OR PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE (may include work on general metered service) A G R E E M E N T THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this____________ day of _________________________, 20_____, by and between the person or persons listed in paragraph 1 hereof, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Applicant," and SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Utility," W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, Applicant is the owner of certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California; and WHEREAS, Utility is presently legally operating and maintaining certain water facilities owned by Utility in an area in said County of Santa Clara, as more particularly shown on that certain map attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and by this reference made a part hereof, said facilities being hereinafter referred to as the "Old Facilities"; and WHEREAS, Applicant desires to have made available mains and/or appurtenances needed to meet various local fire protection requirements involving the relocating, removing or abandoning of the Old Facilities and/or the installation of certain new water facilities, hereinafter referred to as the "New Facilities" substantially as shown on that certain map attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, to be installed in accordance with Utility's usual practices; and WHEREAS, upon the terms and conditions herein set forth Utility is willing to accomplish such work upon the New and Old Facilities, said facilities being hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as the "Total Facilities", provided that the actual total installed cost of the same shall be borne by Applicant as more particularly set forth below; and WHEREAS, Utility is willing to furnish water service through and by means thereof at the rates and in accordance with the rules of Utility now in force, or that may from time to time hereafter be lawfully established; and WHEREAS, such work is not covered by Utility's Rule 15, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; and DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 Form18 2 WHEREAS, Utility will supply only such water at such pressures as may be available from time to time as a result of its normal operations of its system; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements, terms and provisions herein contained, it is agreed as follows: 1. Applicant. The names and addresses of the person or persons herein collectively referred to as "Applicant" are as follows: Name : Midpeninsula Regional Park Open Space District Address: 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 2. Applicable Form. This agreement is entered into pursuant to the requirements and in accordance with the form of agreement in effect and on file with the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission). This Agreement does not, therefore, require specific authorization of the Commission to carry out its terms and conditions. 3. Applicant's Deposit. The estimated total installed cost of Total Facilities, hereinafter referred to as the "Estimated Cost," is $96,720.00 . Applicant has advanced to Utility an amount equal to the Estimated Cost, receipt of which amount is hereby acknowledged by Utility. The Estimated Cost shall include any income tax component authorized by the Commission at the date of execution of this agreement. 4. Installation of Facilities. Utility agrees that it will, as soon as necessary materials and labor are available, and necessary permits, franchises, licenses or other governmental authorizations, easements and right of way satisfactory to Utility have been executed by Applicant and delivered to Utility, commence and prosecute to completion with all reasonable diligence the work of installing the Total Facilities. Utility reserves the right to make such changes in design or materials as it may deem necessary. If such change results in a 10% or greater increase in the Estimated Cost, Utility shall give written notice to Applicant of the amount of such cost increase and will demand an additional deposit to cover the increased cost. If within ten (10) days of giving such notice of cost increase, Applicant gives Utility written notice to discontinue such work upon the Total Facilities, Utility shall discontinue the same and shall forthwith refund to Applicant the unexpended portion, if any, of Applicant's deposit. If Applicant does not give Utility written notice to discontinue such work within ten (10) days after such notice of cost increase, Utility may proceed with such work at its option. Within sixty (60) days after Utility has ascertained its actual costs of installing the Total Facilities, it will provide Applicant with a statement of the same showing in reasonable detail the costs incurred for material, labor and other direct and indirect costs, overheads and total costs, or unit costs or contract costs, whichever are appropriate. If such actual construction costs shall not have been DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 Form18 3 determined within one hundred twenty (120) days after completion of construction work, a preliminary determination of actual costs shall be submitted, based upon the best available information at that time. Upon completion of the work upon the Total Facilities, if the actual total installed cost thereof including applicable income taxes is greater or less than the total amount deposited by Applicant hereunder, the difference shall forthwith be paid by Applicant to Utility or refunded by Utility to Applicant as the case may be. It is expressly agreed that there shall be included in said actual total installed cost any sums paid for materials used in such work upon the Total Facilities by reason of price increases applicable to such materials. Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, no other refund will be made to the Applicant, for any sums deposited or to be deposited by the Applicant with the Utility hereunder. 5. Grades. If at the Applicant's request the New Facilities are installed in easements or rights of way where final grades have not been established or in streets whose grades have not been brought to those established by public authority, Applicant, upon written notice by Utility, shall deposit with Utility forthwith the estimated cost, including applicable income taxes, as determined by Utility, of relocating, raising or lowering the New Facilities upon establishment of final grades. Adjustment of any difference between the amount so deposited and the actual cost of relocating, raising or lowering the New Facilities shall be made within thirty (30) days after Utility has ascertained such actual cost. Utility will refund the entire deposit including applicable income taxes relating to such proposed relocation, raising or lowering when appropriate authority determines that such displacements are not required. 6. Applicant's Agreements. Applicant agrees to use its best efforts to assist Utility to obtain any and all permits or other governmental authorizations which may be required for the installation of the Total Facilities. If for any reason any additional easements are required for the installation of the Total Facilities, Applicant will cause the same to be procured in the name of Utility if such is located on private property, and will cause evidence of such fact to be furnished to Utility or will cause such easements to be conveyed to Utility, as the case may be. Applicant's agreement in this paragraph 6 is in no way limited to those easements and rights of way provided for in paragraph 4 hereof. 7. Ownership. The Total Facilities to be installed hereunder and all construction work in connection therewith shall be and remain at all times the property of Utility, and Applicant shall have no right, title or interest whatsoever in or to the same. 8. Construction Delay. Utility shall not be responsible for any delay in construction resulting from any cause beyond its control, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any delay resulting from inability to obtain sufficient proper materials and supplies, labor disturbances or shortages, or weather conditions, or inability to obtain necessary permits, licenses, franchises or other governmental authorizations. In the event Utility is unable to obtain sufficient materials to meet all construction requirements necessary to provide adequate service to all its customers, it shall be entitled to allocate materials obtained by it to such construction projects as in its sole discretion it deems most important to service needs of its customers, and any delay in construction of the Facilities resulting from any such DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 Form18 4 allocation of materials by Utility shall be deemed to be a cause beyond its control and it shall not be responsible for such delay. 9. Notices. Any notice which may or shall be given by either party to the other shall be deemed to have been duly given when deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid and addressed to the party to whom such notice is given at the following addresses: To Applicant: Midpeninsula Regional Park Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 To Utility: San Jose Water Company 110 West Taylor Street San Jose, CA 95110 Either party, by notice, may change the address to which notice shall thereafter be addressed. 10. Nature of Obligation of Applicant. If more than one person is named in paragraph 1 hereof, the obligations of the persons executing this agreement as Applicant shall be joint and several obligations. Until Applicant shall notify Utility in writing to the contrary, all refunds hereunder shall be paid by Utility to: Midpeninsula Regional Park Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 without recourse. 11. Successors and Assigns. This agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall bind the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 12. Utility's Right to Offset. In the event Applicant shall become entitled to a repayment or refund under the provisions of this Agreement, Utility shall have the right at such time to offset against the amount then due Applicant hereunder the total amount of any indebtedness then due or owing by Applicant to Utility. 13. Jurisdiction of Public Utilities Commission. This agreement shall at all times be subject to such changes or modifications by the California Public Utilities Commission as said Commission may from time to time direct in the exercise of its jurisdiction. DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 Form18 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this agreement in duplicate the day and year first above written. APPLICANT SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY By_________________________ By____________________________ By________________________ By____________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Tanisha Werner Attachment 1 TRASH S D 7 + 0 0 8 + 0 0 7 + 0 0 8 + 0 0 7 + 0 0 8 + 0 0 7 + 0 0 8 + 0 0 7 + 0 0 8 + 0 0 G G 8 + 2 9 8 + 2 9 8 + 2 9 8 + 2 9 8 + 2 9 * * WQ-5030, WQ-5040, WQ-5110, WQ-5140A AND WQ-5140B. DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE POLICY DOCUMENTS COMPLY WITH THE SANITARY SEWER & STORM DRAIN* PLACEMENT. VALVE EXTENSION LENGTHS SHALL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO VALVE EXTENSIONS AND VALVE BOX INSTALLATIONS. ALL USE STD. DWGS. MAIN-VSE, MAIN-PN, AND MAIN-VB FOR* INSTALLATION. USE STD. DWG. MAIN-TW FOR COPPER TRACER WIRE * USE STD. DWG. MAIN-RPM FOR RESTRAINED PIPE MARKING.* SERVICE. USE STD. DWG. FS FOR PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION* INSTALLATION. USED STD. DWG. MAIN-AVpav't FOR 1/2" AIR VALVE* INSTALLATIONS. USE STD. DWGS. SER-1c AND SER-2c FOR SERVICE* NOT CROSS DRIVEWAYS. INSTALL SERVICES SUCH THAT CONSUMERS' LINES DO* PLANS. CROSSING UTILITIES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE MAINTAIN A MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 12" WHEN* SEWER MAINS. SANITARY LATERALS OR WHEN CROSSING SANITARY CENTER A FULL LENGTH OF PIPE WHEN UNDERCROSSING* GRADE MAIN TO AVOID USE OF AIR VALVES.* REMOVE METER BOXES FROM SERVICES BEING KILLED.* THE GENERAL PLAN. NOTE THAT EXISTING PAVEMENT IS SHOWN SHADED ON* ESTABLISH PIPE GRADES USING TOP OF CURB.* 1-800-227-2600, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. NOTIFY UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) AT * DIRECTED BY THE SJW CONSTRUCTION DEPT. FOLLOW METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF SHUTDOWN AS* NOTIFY CONSUMERS OF SHUTDOWN.* THE (SJW) CONTRACTOR SHALL: SJW ENGINEERING BEFORE PROCEEDING. THAT A CROSSING HAS LESS THAN 6" CLEARANCE, CONTACT THE GENERAL PLAN. IF IT IS DETERMINED IN THE FIELD HAVE LESS THAT 12" CLEARANCE. LOCATION IS SHOWN ON PER SJW STD. DWG. SEP-BAR FOR ALL CROSSINGS WHICH BETWEEN PROPOSED UTILITIES AND EXISTING WATER MAIN DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL A SEPARATION BARRIER APPROVED BY THE SAN JOSE WATER BACKFLOW DEPT. POSSIBLE TO THE SERVICE CONNECTIONS AT LOCATIONS BACKFLOW DEVICES MUST BE INSTALLED AS NEAR AS IRRIGATION SERVICES. THE PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION, DOMESTIC AND PRESSURE PRINCIPLE BACKFLOW PREVENTER (RPP) ON DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL AN SJW APPROVED REDUCED AND PUMPER CONNECTION PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE WITH SPRINKLERS, _ ENCROACHMENT OF METER BOXES. A LETTER OF PERMISSION IS REQUIRED FOR THE 1 - 1" SEVICE; 1 - 1" METER ( 1 IRRIG. )02) 1 - 2" SERVICE; 1 - 2" METER01) INSTALL: J0 - 503 1 - 3/4" SERVICE01) KILL: J0 - 703 1 - 6" PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE01) INSTALL: J0 - 7 + 0 0 8 + 0 0 4"FS 8 + 2 9 EQUIP. SHED COVERED SHED BIN MATRL. BIN MATRL. BIN MATRL. BIN MATRL. BIN MATRL. PARKING NO KEVYN MEI REVISION DATE CK CKDATENo.BY DATE SCALE: REF. NOS. DWG. NO. OF PLANNING / DATE ENGINEERING / DATE AS SHOWN BY: CHECK / DATE: San Jose Water Company CHECK / DATE: SHEET N19-041 1 CONSTRUCTION CONTACT: 78 PSI TO 95 PSI SITE LOCATION NO SCALE N V-BIO ENCASEMENT ZINC COATED w/ YOU OF THE WORK SCHEDULE. CONSTRUCTION DEPT. WILL NOTIFY PLEASE ORDER MATERIAL. SJWC ENG. FOREMAN: DATE TO CONTRACTOR: PROPOSED START DATE: ACTUAL START DATE: COMPLETION DATE: AS-BUILT CHECK: CONST. CONTRACTOR: FOR AS-BUILT STAMP ONLY BELGATOS CITY OF CAMPBELL DEVELOPER: REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: PERMIT: PRESSURE: ZONE: N J0 - Exp. 3/31/20 CIVIL R E G IS T E R EDPROFESS IO N ALE N G I N E E R ST A T E OFCALIFORNIA N AH P YUH MA L No. 85157 LOS ALTOS, CA. 94022 330 DISTEL CIRCLE OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL (650) 625-6589 TANISHA WERNER PIPE TO BE RETIRED GENERAL PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' 0 10 20 40 60 T I MB E R CAMBRIAN DALLAS CENTRAL PARK C R IST IC H S T O N E H U R S T N O R I N HIGHLAND PARKMORRIS WESTC HESTER P A R K D A L E O A K P A R K G RI FFI T H 2919 S . M C G L I N C E Y L N E. MCGLINCEY LN CAMPBELLTECHNOLOGY DR 2918 SITE 853 - E7 THOMAS GUIDE F R WY 1 7 EX. GAS LATERAL E X . 3 0 " R C P 7 . 5 ' C V R E X . 6 ' V C P 5 . 4 ' C V R E X . 2 " H P G A S ( C V R U N K . ) (E9-229) 483.5' N HYD #E-00835 L / S L / S E X . 6 ' V C P 5 . 4 ' C V R E X . 3 0 " R C P 7 . 5 ' C V R 1" KILL: 140' E METER #10170521 1 - 3/4" SERVICE2" IRRIG. 16" x 6" SLV TAP O-RING C.I. SIO # INSTALL: 6" VALVE GATE FLG x MJ LHO 6" PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE RUN: SERIAL # EX. PAV'T THICKNESS: "MAIN CVR: ' W/E CRISTICH LN *cross street *N/N - GRIFFITH LN :TURNSMAKE:W/ " EXT E X . 8 . 6 2 5 " W S C L P IP E ( 6 0 - 3 9 9 ) 10' STREET DEDICATION 40' I.E.E. & P.U.E. C R I S T I C H L N ( P R I V A T E S T R E E T ) 5' P.S.E. VALLEY GUTTER 1' 5' 17' 20' L/S 7' 25' EX. BLDG. EX. GAS W - 1" - 640' N 244 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-015 240 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-014 214 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-012 201 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-016 213 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-017 EX. BLDG. EX. BLDG. EX. BLDG. L/S (E9-228) 630' N EX. 4" FS E X. 8" DICL (E9-228) 3' C V R 10' STREET DEDICATION 3 . 17 ' C V R 5 . 17 ' C V R LIST OF DRAWINGS 1) GENERAL PLAN BE REMOVED BY DEVELOPER TEMP 6" CAP & 2" B.O. TO GRIFFITH LN EX. BLDG. EX. FENCE (TYP.) 695 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PKWY APN #412-29-010 FORMAN DR APN #412-29-008 EX. BOLLARD LOCATION #1 BELOW THIS SHEET) (SEE FUEL LEAK NOTE ON 260 CRISTICH LN PROXIMITY OF KNOWN SITE OF FUEL TANK LEAK NOTE: GRIFFITH'S PROPERTY LOCATION #2 BELOW THIS SHEET) (SEE FUEL LEAK NOTE ON 240 CRISTICH LN WEST VALLEY CHARTER LINES LOCATION #3 BELOW THIS SHEET) (SEE FUEL LEAK NOTE ON 214 CRISTICH LN TANNER CONSTRUCTION LOCATION #4 BELOW THIS SHEET) (SEE FUEL LEAK NOTE ON 200 CRISTICH LN CHARTER PLUMBING LOCATION #5 BELOW THIS SHEET) (SEE FUEL LEAK NOTE ON 213 CRISTICH LN SANCO PIPELINE PROPERLY LICENSED SUBCONTRATOR. DISPOSED OF IN COOPERATION WITH THE WQ DEPARTMENT USING THE CONTRACTOR'S CONTAMINATED SOIL SHALL BE IDENTIFIED, HANDLED MANIFESTED, REPORTED AND WATER QUALITY DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY IF ENCOUNTERED. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND PROTECT WORKER SAFETY PER OSHA AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. NOTIFY SJWC AND NOTIFY WORKERS ON HOW TO RECOGNIZE POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND SEE WEBSITE FOR INFORMATION. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TRAIN LOCATIONS #1, #2, #3, #4, AND #5 GEOTRACKER.WATERBOARDS.CA.GOV: A LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK IS LOCATED AT THIS ADJACENT PARCEL PER 528' N/N BY DEVELOPER) (TO BE REMOVED 6" VCP 12" RCP L/S L/S UNRESTRAINED PIPE RESTRAINED PIPE W/FIELD LOK GASKETS LEGEND EX. GAS LINE NEW SEWER PIPE NEW STORM DRAIN PIPE EX. STORM DRAIN PIPE EX. SEWER PIPE ACTIVE WATER MAIN/SERVICES EX. AC PAVEMENT USE RESTRAINED GLANDS W/ MJ FITTINGS AND VALVES ON RESTRAINED PIPE ALL DICL PIPE SHOULD BE ZIN-COATED WITH V-BIO WRAPPED. 1 CRISTICH LANE INSTALLATION 6" FIRE SERVICE 7.5' CVR 4.5' CVR TOP OF EX. 16" DICL PIPE: 62" OR 5.17' CVR TOP OF EX. 8.625" WSCL PIPE: 38" OR 3.17' CVR SJW ENGINEERING BEFORE PROCEEDING. THAT A CROSSING HAS LESS THAN 6" CLEARANCE, CONTACT THE GENERAL PLAN. IF IT IS DETERMINED IN THE FIELD HAVE LESS THAT 12" CLEARANCE. LOCATION IS SHOWN ON PER SJW STD. DWG. SEP-BAR FOR ALL CROSSINGS WHICH BETWEEN PROPOSED UTILITIES AND EXISTING WATER MAIN DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL A SEPARATION BARRIER * * * POTHOLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY DEVELOPER: EX. 16" DICL PIPE CROSSING ( 12" CLEAR) 2) PROPOSED 12" STORM 7.5' +/- CVR AT (8" TO 10" CLEAR). AND 3.92' +/- CVR AT EX. 16" DICL PIPE CROSSING. EX. 8.625" WSCL PIPE CROSSING (8" - 10" CLEAR) 1) PROPOSED 6" SANITARY SEWER 4.5' +/- CVR AT NOTE: EMAILED FROM DEVELOPER DATED 5/15/2020 * * E X . 16 " D IC L P IP E ( E 9 - 2 2 8 ) KILL AT THE MAIN E X . PL E X . PL 2500 GPM E X . 16 " D IC L P IP E 5 . 17 ' C V R ( E 9 - 2 2 8 ) 6" DICL PIPE W/ MEGALUGS 6" VALVE GATE F X MJ W/ 6" FLANGE INSULATION KIT 16" x 6" SLEEVE TAP MJ 1 CONNECTION DETAIL1 SCALE: N.T.S. 1 1 (FIRE SERVICE) CHIEF ENGINEER / DATE E L E V . 2 1 4 ' E L E V . 2 1 5 ' E L E V . 2 1 2 ' Phan , Lam Digitally signed by Phan, Lam Date: 2020.06.11 08:39:05 -07'00' Phan, Lam Digitally signed by Phan, Lam Date: 2020.06.11 08:37:35 -07'00' Walsh, Jake Digitally signed by Walsh, Jake Date: 2020.06.17 21:28:05 -07'00' Dunbar, Nicole Fourie Digitally signed by Dunbar, Nicole Fourie Date: 2020.06.17 16:35:06 -07'00' Tuttle, Bill Digitally signed by Tuttle, Bill Date: 2020.06.17 17:01:06 -07'00' Dunbar, Nicole Fourie Digitally signed by Dunbar, Nicole Fourie Date: 2020.06.17 16:34:37 -07'00' DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 0 SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 60 100 200 N KEVYN MEI REVISION DATE CK CKDATENo.BY DATE SCALE: REF. NOS. DWG. NO. OF PLANNING / DATE ENGINEERING / DATE AS SHOWN BY: CHECK / DATE: San Jose Water Company CHECK / DATE: SHEET ALL SERVICES SHOWN HYDRANTS AFFECTED BY THE SHUTDOWN: LEGEND = LOOPED MAIN 1 1 J0 - S SHUTDOWN ALL SERVICES SHOWN ID #503605 16" M&H N19-041 E-00097E-00836E-00835 SHUTDOWN ALL SERVICES SHOWN ID #503604 16" M&H SHUTDOWN PLAN T T )241-36( LCKF " 526. 6 8 " D IC L (E 9 -228 ) 7 .5 ' E-00096 221' S HYD 297560 )241-36( LCKF "526.6 E-00833 448.5' N HYD 297554 12 ' 11872 3573 3 8-4" FS 8 4 9 2 1 - 1 " 29 7 5 8 7-1.5" E-0 0 3 00 5 3 3' W H Y D 190 3 4 8 1 0 7 5 7 1 - 0 . 7 5 " 503591 503578 6.6 2 5 " WS C L (59-19 0) 2 0 987 7-6" F S 118911-0.75" 137159-0.75" 6 6' E-00821 432' N HYD 297549 23 3108-1" 6.625" FKCL (63-142) 302748-1.5" 310176-0.75" 503603 8" DICL (E9-228) 503605 17 9 4 6 2 - 1" 7.5' 35 52 37-6" F S 11 8 2 12-1.2 5" 6' 26 602 4- 0. 75 " 12" DICL (E9-228) 12 " D IC L ( E 9 - 2 2 8 ) 50 3 5 8 3 4 " A C ( 6 6 - 1 1 3 ) 50 5 1 2 8 6' )504 - 1 6( LCKF "526.6 4 9 8 0 3 -0.7 5 " 2 3 7 2 4 -0.7 5 " D istrict retaW yella V aral C atnaS 1 5 4 9 0 5-1" 8" DICL (E9-228) 6 . 6 2 5 " F K C L ( 6 3 - 1 4 2 ) 118 2 10- 1.2 5" E -008 22 34 ' W H Y D 29 7 5 5 8 E-00826 191' N HYD 297546 310175-0.75" 503592 226750-6" FS E-00820 125' N HYD 297557 7.5' 134008-1" 503584 503588 50 3 6 0 4 22 462-0.75" E-00 8 3 5 483.5' N H Y D 297563 6 " W S (5 0 -2 57 ) )752-05( SW "6 A-03668 30' W HYD 97566 W ESTC H E S T ER DR 11326 6.625" FKCL (61-303) 1 0 7 5 4 4 - 0 . 7 5 " 263538-1" 6' A-04257 26' N HYD 8 4 9 2 6 - 0 . 7 5 " 29 7 5 8 3-2" 118 9 2 7 -0.75" 107570-0.75" 92769-0.75" )771 -4 6( L CK F "526.6 8" DICL (G6-425) 134009-0.75" 118 9 19-0.75" 11883 P A R K D A L E D R 147100-0.75" 1 1 8 2 13-1" E-00207 424' N HYD 111899 11 8 9 2 9 -0.7 5" 6' 11343 504506 134006-0.75" 11870 503579 44757-0.7 5 " )822-9E( L CI D "21 G RIFFIT H L N 225412-1" E-000 5 6 20 98' W HYD 32 757 266026 - 0. 75 " 8 4 9 2 2 - 0 . 7 5 " 35 5 2 3 8 -1.5" 92 7 6 6 -0.75 " E-00828 167' S HYD 297550 18 8 1 8 -0.7 5 " E-00823 405' N HYD 297556 52 4 4-0.75" 12' E- 0 0 2 0 6 2 0' N H Y D 1 1 1 8 0 8 2 9 7 5 7 6- 8" F S 1 1 8 2 1 1 - 1" 2 9 7 5 8 2- 2" 266025 - 0. 75 " 303) 6.625" FKCL (61- 8 " D I C L ( E 9 - 2 2 8 ) 927 6 7-0.75" 4 1'6" W S (50-287) 118218-1" E-003 4 6 29' W H Y D 22 4 4 3 2 134002-0.75" 30 2 5 2 2-2" 5 2 5 2-0.7 5 " 7.5' )822-9E( LCID "8 11846 8 4 9 2 4 - 0 . 7 5 " 503581 506012 503590 11865 405 222 -1.5" 1788 5-0.75" 405221-1.5" 506013 60' 8" DICL (G3-091) 55' 118 9 2 1-0.75" 107572-0.75" 225413-0.75" 60' E- 00 8 3 6 4 5. 5' N HYD 29 7 5 6 1 E-0082 9 17 1.5' E H Y D 297 5 5 5 5 2 5 1 -0.7 5 " 12' 2 2.5' 7 . 5' 1 0 7 5 4 1 - 1 " 8 . 6 2 5 " F K C L ( 6 0 - 3 9 9 ) 8.62 5 " FK C L (60 -39 9 ) )504-16( LCKF "526.6 503587 C R IS TIC H LN E-00825 25' N HYD 297545 134005-1" 86694-1" 11844 254 4 9 4-8" F S 18 7 8 42-1" 131911-0.75" 8 4 9 19- 1" 131 2 65-0.75" 5 248-0.75" 118215-1" 8 4 9 2 3 - 1 " E-00 0 9 7 203.5' N HYD 29 7 5 6 2 118 9 7 9 -1" 8 4 9 2 5 - 1" 134001-1" E -00834 246 ' N HYD 297559 503577 E-00827 67.5' W HYD 297547 297584-2" 297579-8" FS 2 2 01 3 4-0.75 " 8 4 9 2 0 - 0.7 5 " 25 4 1 3 7 -0.75 " 22 6 7 51-1.5" 1 3 4 0 0 4 - 0 . 7 5 " 6' 503585 118214-1.25" 118219-1" 5247-0.75" 11845 1 0 7 5 4 3 - 1 " 7107-0.7 5 " 14 3 0 4 1 -0.75" )822-9E( L C ID "21 310177-0.75" 1189 2 3-0.75" ) 311 - 6 6 ( L C M O S " 5 2 6 . 6 13 2 8 6 4 -0.75" 3 2 0 8 2 0-8" F S 92 8 0 0 -0.75" 503589 2 9 7 5 8 6- 1. 5" 503586 8 4 8 8 1 - 1" 297577-8" FS 503574 503580 21 7 38 8-1" 52 4 6-0.75" 2 5' 29 7 5 80- 4" F S 1 4 3 7 0 7 - 4 " Campbell Tech Pue 586 4 7-0.75" 137183-2" 8" DI C L ( E 9-2 2 8) 134007-1" 141840-0.75" 1 3 4 0 0 3 - 1 " 2 2 8 ) 8" DICL (E9- E-00837 264' N HYD 297566 6 ' 21' 14.5' 1 8 4 1 9 0 -1" E-0005 7 13 3 0 ' W H Y D 3 2 7 5 8 11884 SITE 214 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-012 240 CRISTICH LN 200 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-011 160 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-010 244 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-015 201 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-016 213 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-017 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-024 163 CRISTICH LN APN #412-32-019 APN #412-29-008 695 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PKWY APN #412-29-010 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PKWY H WY 17 L O S G A T O S C R E E K T R IAL S.C.V.W.D. APN #412-31-025 MCGLINCEY LN E. 2 9 0 4 7 6 - 4" F S 16 " D IC L (E9-22 8 ) FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE SHUTDOWN. CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT BY THE END OF THE DAY THIS SHUTDOWN PLAN MUST BE RETURNED TO THE CRISTICH LANE INSTALLATION 6" FIRE SERVICE CHIEF ENGINEER / DATE Phan, Lam Digitally signed by Phan, Lam Date: 2020.06.11 08:39:52 -07'00' DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 NB19-041 (ENCROACHMENT).DOC ENCROACHMENT PERMISSION LETTER SUBJECT: Meters, Meter Boxes & Service Installations LOCATION: E/side Cristich Lane, Campbell FOR: 240 Cristich Lane APN 412-32-014 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY EST. NO.: Consent is hereby given for San Jose Water Company to encroach upon our property to maintain its facilities and for meter reading purposes. The signature(s) below indicates agreement to this consent. PROPERTY OWNER(S) By: ______________________________ Print Name By: ______________________________ Signature Dated:_______________________________ By: ______________________________ Print Name By: ______________________________ Signature Dated:_______________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Tanisha Werner Attachment 1 110 W. Taylor Street San Jose, CA 95110-2131 ACH Instructions Bank routing number – 322271627 Account number – 831363663 Account name – San Jose Water Company – Concentration Please include SJWC project number for your project Wire Instructions Bank routing number – 021000021 Account number – 831363663 Account name – San Jose Water Company – Concentration Please include SJWC project number for your project DocuSign Envelope ID: 42C22944-E44B-42CE-932B-1D50E8A58BA4 Attachment 1 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 42C22944E44B42CE932B1D50E8A58BA4 Status: Sent Subject: Building Renovation Project - 240 Cristich Lane, Campbell Source Envelope: Document Pages: 25 Signatures: 0 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 James R Bariteau AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 110 W. Taylor Street San Jose, CA 95110 jim.bariteau@sjwater.com IP Address: 34.104.2.98 Record Tracking Status: Original 7/13/2020 3:53:15 PM Holder: James R Bariteau jim.bariteau@sjwater.com Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Tanisha Werner twerner@openspace.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 7/13/2020 4:20:23 PM Viewed: 7/14/2020 11:18:53 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 7/14/2020 11:18:53 AM ID: 4b0e8733-f229-4789-8995-cb1d6854826a James R Bariteau jim.bariteau@sjwater.com Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Jay Lin jlin@openspace.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 7/13/2020 4:20:23 PM Attachment 1 Payment Events Status Timestamps Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure Attachment 1 ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE From time to time, San Jose Water Company (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign system. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure (ERSD), please confirm your agreement by selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after the signing session and, if you elect to create a DocuSign account, you may access the documents for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. Further, you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/26/2018 2:11:33 PM Parties agreed to: Tanisha Werner Attachment 1 Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. How to contact San Jose Water Company: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To advise San Jose Water Company of your new email address To let us know of a change in your email address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at and in the body of such request you must state: your previous email address, your new email address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address. If you created a DocuSign account, you may update it with your new email address through your account preferences. To request paper copies from San Jose Water Company To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an email to and in the body of such request you must state your email address, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with San Jose Water Company To inform us that you no longer wish to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your signing session, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; Attachment 1 ii. send us an email to and in the body of such request you must state your email, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software The minimum system requirements for using the DocuSign system may change over time. The current system requirements are found here: https://support.docusign.com/guides/signer-guide- signing-system-requirements. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive and sign documents electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please confirm that you have read this ERSD, and (i) that you are able to print on paper or electronically save this ERSD for your future reference and access; or (ii) that you are able to email this ERSD to an email address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format as described herein, then select the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system. By selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’, you confirm that: You can access and read this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure; and You can print on paper this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure, or save or send this Electronic Record and Disclosure to a location where you can print it, for future reference and access; and Until or unless you notify San Jose Water Company as described above, you consent to receive exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you by San Jose Water Company during the course of your relationship with San Jose Water Company. Attachment 1 July 18, 2020 James R. Bariteau Senior Water Services Representative San Jose Water Company 1265 S. Bascom Avenue San Jose, CA 95128 jim.bariteau@sjwater.com Re: Building Renovation Project, 240 Cristich Lane, Campbell Dear Mr. Bariteau: The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) is currently in the process of constructing the project in the City of Campbell referenced in your letter dated July 13, 2020. As we have discussed, the District wishes to proceed with the work outlined in your letter and the attached Agreement for the private fire protection service and general metered service connections. The District expects to receive permit clearance from Santa Clara County Fire Department soon. In lieu of a copy of the final fire sprinkler underground piping plans approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, this letter serves to indicate that the District will accept full and financial responsibility for the size and location of the fire protection services. Time is of the essence with every aspect of this project. Therefore the District assumes the risk associated with authorizing SJWC to commence work on the Utility prior to the District receiving final plan check approval from the Santa Clara County Fire on the fire sprinkler system design. I trust that this letter provides the appropriate information as the District wishes to have SJWC timely proceed with constructing the service connections described in the contract that is accompanied by this letter. Sincerely, Ana Ruiz General Manager Cc: Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Tanisha Werner, Project Manager Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel Attachment 2 Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-77 Meeting 20-16 July 22, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Appointment of Four Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Members GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION 1. Select and appoint members to serve on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee for the four vacant positions from the candidates listed in the staff report. 2. Refer review of Board Policy 1.10, Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Bylaws, to the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee for potential updates. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Measure AA requires formation of a bond oversight committee (Committee) to review bond expenditures to verify conformity with the adopted expenditure plan. During May and June 2020, staff advertised for the four openings on the Committee that had terms expiring and received five applications. The Board of Directors (Board) interviewed the five applicants at a special meeting on July 15, 2020. Based on the process approved at the January 13, 2016 Board meeting, the Board will select four applicants to fill the current Committee vacancies. The terms will be effective July 1, 2020, and the four appointees will serve through the end of June 2024. The Committee is made up of seven seats, and the other three terms will end in 2022. The names of the interviewed applicants are listed below. •Paul Betlem •Brian Cilker •David Emery •John Kennedy •Bruce Tolley The process for appointing the four Committee members will be as follows: 1.Each Board member will rank all five applicants in order of preference and state their rankings for the record. The District Clerk will tabulate the results. 2.The four applicants receiving the highest rankings will be appointed to the Committee. In the event of a tie, another round of voting will be held with each Board member having the same number of votes as unfilled Committee seats. The District Clerk will then tabulate the results. R-20-77 Page 2 3.If any ties remain, the General Counsel shall choose the Committee members for the open seats by drawing lots from among those applicants receiving the tied votes. In the event of an unexpected Committee vacancy prior to the recruitment of new Committee members in 2022, the Board may choose to appoint one of the remaining applicants to fill the vacancy without conducting a separate recruitment. Board Policy 1.10, Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Bylaws, was drafted in 2015 prior to development of the processes and procedures to be used by the Committee to review Measure AA expenditures. Since that time, the Committee developed effective and efficient procedures to review Measure AA expenditures. To conform the policy to current procedures and to consider Board remarks at the July 15, 2020 Board meeting, staff recommends the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee review the policy to make recommendations for potential updates. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the appointment of the Committee members. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The applications were reviewed, and the applicants interviewed by the full Board of Directors. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Additional notices were sent to the Measure AA mailing list. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS Upon appointment to the Committee, the District Clerk will notify all candidates of their appointment or non-appointment. Appointed Committee members will be invited to take the oath of office at the August 12, 2020 Board meeting. Responsible Department Head: Ana Ruiz, General Manager Prepared by: Maria Soria, Executive Assistant/Deputy District Clerk General Manager’s Office Contact person: Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager R-20-78 Meeting 20-16 July 22, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 8 AGENDA ITEM Proposed Purchase of the San Jose Water Company Property as an addition to El Sereno Open Space Preserve located in unincorporated Santa Clara County, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 510- 33-001, -004, -005, -006, 510-35-004 & -005; Assignment of Purchase and Sale Agreement for the San Jose Water Company Property to Peninsula Open Space Trust; Approval of a Lease and Management Agreement. GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1.Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the San Jose Water Company property at a cost of $1,075,000 with corresponding authorization for a Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget adjustment of the same amount, and authorizing the General Manager, if necessary, to approve an Assignment of Purchase and Sale Agreement, and a Lease and Management Agreement, entered into with Peninsula Open Space Trust for the San Jose Water Company property. 3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the property, as set out in the staff report. 4. Withhold dedication of the San Jose Water Company Property as public open space. SUMMARY The General Manager recommends purchasing the 182.15-acre San Jose Water Company Property (Property) at a purchase price of $1,075,000 as an addition to El Sereno Open Space Preserve (Preserve). The General Manager also seeks authorization, if necessary, to assign its purchase rights for the Property to Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) in order to secure grant funding and to enter into a Lease and Management Agreement with POST to manage the Property until its future conveyance to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). 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 $1,075,000 to the Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) budget would be required to proceed with the acquisition. R-20-78 Page 2 DISCUSSION The District proposes to purchase the 182.15-acre property consisting of six assessor parcel numbers and four legal parcels that are all zoned Hillside-d1. The Property is surrounded by the 1,433-acre El Sereno Open Space Preserve. The Property drains into both the Los Gatos Creek and Saratoga Creek watersheds and is visible from within the Preserve. A portion of the District’s Aquinas Trail crosses the Property and is designated as part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. This purchase advances Measure AA Portfolio #19 El Sereno Open Space Preserve for Dog trails, and connection to Skyline/Sanborn County Park and Lexington Reservoir. The purchase of the Property would perfect ownership of the current trail connections within the Preserve and fill a large inholding. A patrol and maintenance easement would also be granted to the District to access the northeast corner of the Property. Property Description and Regional Context (see attached map) The Property consists of six assessor parcels and four legal parcels. The Property can be accessed from Overlook Road and the Aquinas Trail. The Property rises to approximately 2,400 feet in elevation and has excellent views of the Preserve, Lexington Reservoir, Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, and the southern Santa Clara Valley. The Property straddles the Los Gatos Creek and Saratoga Creek watersheds with one unnamed tributary flowing into Trout Creek and two unnamed tributaries flowing into San Tomas Aquinas Creek. Land Use and Improvements Until the 1970’s, San Jose Water Company operated a small water intake on the 5.04-acre parcel identified as APN: 510-35-005. The water intake structure consists of a concrete dam and pipelines in disrepair. In addition to the water intake, the Property is also improved with approximately 0.35 miles of a 10-foot wide dirt road that connects two segments of the District’s Aquinas Trail (APN: 510-33-006). While use of this road is unperfected, the property owner has not specifically excluded use for patrol or trail access within the larger preserve. The Aquinas Trail is designated as part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. The remainder of the Property is unimproved. Habitat and Natural Resources Value The vegetation on the Property is mainly comprised of chamise chaparral and mixed broadleaf hardwood forest. Chamise chaparral is a fire dependent vegetation community. The Property provides varied habitat for animal species associated with the upper elevations of the Preserve, including larger mammals such as deer, coyotes, bobcats, and mountain lions. A wide variety of bird species occupy and migrate through the general area. Water Resources and Rights The Property contains three unnamed tributaries. One tributary flows into Trout Creek, which then flows into Los Gatos Creek, and two tributaries flow into San Tomas Aquinas Creek, which then flows into Saratoga Creek. All water rights associated with the Property would be owned by the District upon the close of escrow. There is an abandoned water diversion on the larger unnamed tributary that flows into San Tomas Aquino Creek that does not prevent the flow of the tributary in any significant way. R-20-78 Page 3 USE AND MANAGEMENT Planning Considerations The Property is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County and outside the urban service area or sphere of influence of any incorporated municipality. The Property has a County General Plan designation of Hillside. The zoning designation is Hillside with design review required (HS-d1). In 1999, the Santa Clara County Planning Department found that all open space acquisitions by the District in unincorporated areas that are classified as a Resource Conservation Area in the County’s General Plan comply with the General Plan. Per the County’s Zoning Regulations, recreation, open space, and natural preserves are allowable uses in HS-d1 zoning designation. If purchased, the Property will be incorporated into the Preserve, and use of the existing road to connect both segments of the Aquinas Trail will continue. Subsequent planning for the Property would be coordinated with the District’s planning efforts for the Preserve and include 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 subsequent long-term plan. The PUMP would take effect at the close of escrow and remain effective until the PUMP is amended or a Comprehensive Use and Management Plan or Preserve Plan is approved for El Sereno Open Space Preserve. The PUMP includes minor restoration and preservation of the Property in its natural condition, as described more fully below. 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. Name: Name the property as an addition to El Sereno Open Space Preserve. Dedication: Indicate the District’s intention to withhold dedication of the subject property as open space at this time. Public Access: Continue public access via the District’s Aquinas Trail. Signs and Site Security: Install preserve boundary signs and trail signs as needed. Fences and gates: Install and maintain fences and gates as needed. Install a District lock on existing gate to water intake improvements. Roads and Trails: Continue to maintain the road that forms a portion of the Aquinas Trail that crosses through the property and maintain as needed the lower access road. Implement maintenance and minor erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the District’s adopted Resource Management Policies standards and regulatory permits. Patrol: Routinely patrol property. R-20-78 Page 4 Resource Management: Conduct plant and animal management activities consistent with the District’s adopted Resource Management Policies, Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual, Best Management Practices and regulatory permits issued to the District as needed. Water Resources and Water Rights: Protect creeks and springs on the Property consistent with the District’s adopted Resource Management Policies, Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual, Best Management Practices and regulatory permits issued to the District as needed. Investigate and determine if the former water diversion improvements should be removed from the Property. If considered appropriate, any action to remove the water division will be undertaken as a separate project at a future date. Wildfire Fuel Management: Implement standard District-wide fuel management and defensible space practices consistent with the District’s Resource Management Policies. CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description The project consists of the purchase of the 182.15-acre Property as an addition to the District’s El Sereno Open Space Preserve and concurrent adoption of a PUMP, including minor erosion control and sediment control measures that may be conducted to prevent erosion. Minor resource management activities may be conducted to control invasive plants. The land would be permanently preserved as open space and maintained in a natural condition. CEQA Determination The District concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. It is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Article 19, Sections 15301, 15316, and 15325 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows: 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 specifies no alteration or expansion of use at this time beyond activities associated with the maintenance of the existing access roads and Aquinas Trail, and minor activities to implement maintenance and minor erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with District standards. 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 specifies that the land will not be developed, will remain in a natural condition, and will be designated as an addition to the District’s El Sereno Open Space Preserve. Section 15325 exempts transfers of ownership of interests in land in order to preserve open space. This acquisition will transfer fee ownership of the property to the District and ensure that the open space will be preserved. The PUMP ensures that the property is preserved as open space by incorporating it into the El Sereno Open Space Preserve. R-20-78 Page 5 TERMS AND CONDITIONS The Property is proposed for purchase at a sale price of $1,075,000 ($5,901 per acre). The Property would be purchased as-is on an all-cash basis. Escrow would close on or before September 30, 2020. This Property is considered a non-utility property by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and their approval is not required for the sale. The District may be able to secure grant funds to complete this purchase through the California Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB), as funds were reapportioned until 2025 in the California State Budget for the acquisition of San Jose Water Company watershed lands. WCB does not allow for the reimbursement of grant funds after a property is purchased. The availability of these funds is now uncertain because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the State’s budget. If the funds are available, the WCB approval process takes approximately 9 months to complete. Therefore, an assignment provision has been added to the Purchase and Sale Agreement. If the grant funds remain available, the purchase would be assigned to POST in order to maintain a close of escrow by September 30, 2020, while the District works to secure the grant funds. Once the grant funds are secured, the District would then purchase the Property from POST at the original purchase price using the grant funds. If POST becomes the interim owner of the Property, the District will assume all management responsibilities under the terms of a Lease and Management Agreement with POST and will manage the Property according to the requirements of the PUMP. FISCAL IMPACT Land acquisitions brought before the Board for approval include a budget adjustment/increase to the adopted budget. If approved, an increase of $1,075,000 to the FY21 budget is required. San Jose Water Company Property Purchase Amount (including $50,000 option deposit) $1,075,000 Total Land Purchases approved to date for FY21 $0 Total FY21 Land Purchases (if approved) $1,075,000 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 19 (El Sereno Dog Trails and Connections) allocation, costs-to-date, projected future project expenditures and projected ending balance at the portfolio level for the El Sereno Trails, Wildlife Corridors and Land Conservation (San Jose Water Company) project. MAA19 El Sereno Dog Trails and Connections Portfolio Allocation: $2,254,000 Life-to-Date Spent (as of 6/18/2020): ($480,241) Encumbrances: $0 San Jose Water Company Property Purchase: ($1,075,000) Remaining FY21 Project Budgets: $0 MAA19-004 Title Insurance, Escrow Fees, and Other Miscellaneous Project Costs: ($10,000) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($1,565,241) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $688,759 R-20-78 Page 6 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 19 (El Sereno Dog Trails and Connections) allocation, costs to date, and the fiscal impact related to the Property purchase. MAA19 El Sereno Dog Trails and Connections Portfolio Allocation: $2,254,000 Projected Project Expenditures (life of project): MAA19-001 Gupta/Khan Property Purchase ($407,267) MAA19-002 Dunham-Bohlman Easement ($19,997) MAA19-003 Haight-Perry Low Value Land Acquisition ($52,977) MAA19-004 San Jose Water Company Property Purchase ($1,085,000) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($1,565,241) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $688,759 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The Real Property Committee did not review the purchase because of the compressed timeline of this acquisition. PUBLIC NOTICE Property owners of land located adjacent to or surrounding the subject property have been mailed a copy of the agenda for this meeting. Accordingly, all notice required by the Brown Act and District policy has been provided. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board, staff would continue to monitor the availability of the grant funds, and if they are available, would proceed with the purchase assignment, but if they are unavailable, staff would proceed with the close of escrow for the purchase of the Property by September 30, 2020, and take the next steps identified in the PUMP as contained in this report. The District’s South Area Field Office would manage the property as an addition to the El Sereno Open Space Preserve. Attachments: 1. Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase and Sale Agreement, Authorizing General Manager or Other Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Assignment of Purchase & Sale Agreement and Lease and Management Agreement any and all Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (El Sereno Open Space Preserve - Lands of San Jose Water Company) 2. Location Map Responsible Department Manager: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Prepared by: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent, Real Property Department Graphics prepared by: R-20-78 Page 7 Nathan Greig, Data Analyst II Francisco Tapia, GIS Technician 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 2020-21 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL BUDGET, AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER OR OTHER APPROPRIATE OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE AND GRANT TO DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ASSIGNMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND LEASE AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT, AND TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION (El SERENO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - LANDS OF SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY) 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 San Jose Water Company 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 (“San Jose Water Property”). SECTION TWO. The Board authorizes the expenditure of $1,075,000.00 covering the purchase of the San Jose Water Property, including an option deposit of $50,000.00. SECTION THREE. The Board approves an amendment to the Budget and Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2020-21 by increasing the Measure AA Fund Capital budget in the amount of $1,075,000.00. Except as herein modified, the FY 2020-21 Budget and Action Plan, Resolution No. 20-18 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 is authorized to close the transaction if the assignment of the purchase is completed but the grant funds become unavailable or the application is denied. SECTION SIX. The General Manager is authorized (if necessary) to approve an assignment of the Purchase and Sale Agreement to the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) and enter into a Lease and Management Agreement with POST. SECTION SEVEN. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is authorized to provide notice of acceptance to the seller, execute all escrow documents and to extend escrow if necessary. Attachment 1 Resolutions/2020/20-___TabachnikPurchase 2 SECTION EIGHT. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is authorized to expend up to $10,000.00 to cover the cost of title insurance, escrow fees, survey and miscellaneous costs related to this transaction. SECTION NINE. 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 !R "4 E L S E R E N O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y Former Water Intake Water Tank Access Easement Permit Only Trout Creek SanTo m a s Aquin a s C r e e k Bohlm a n R o a d A q u i n a s Trail Bohlm anRoad M ont e v i n a Ridg e Tr a il Lo m a V i s t a T r a i l Sere n i t y Trail Aq u i n as Tra i l O v erlookTrai l M c G i l l R d O v e r l o o k D r i v e McGill Rd MontevinaRoad Linda Vista A v e . S A N B O R N C O U N T Y P A R K S T E W A R T R I D G E M i d p en i n su la Re g i onal Op e n S p a ce D i st r i ct (M RO S D) Ja nu a r y 2 0 1 8 San Jo se Wa ter Co mpa ny Pr op er t y Path: G:\Projects\El_Sereno\SJWC\SJWC_BoardReport_2018123.mxd Created By: acostanza 0 0.40.2 MilesI MROSD Preser ves Pr ivate Proper ty 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. Sa n J o s e Water Company Parcels of Interest Area of Detail ÄÆ35 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ17 Campbell Saratoga Los Gatos Other Protected Lands SJWC APN: 510-33-005 84.35 Acres SJWC APN: 510-33-001 38.41 Acres SJWC APN: 510-35-004 11.42 Acres SJWC APN: 510-35-005 5.04 Acres SJWC APN: 510-33-006 42.42 Acres SJWC APN: 510-33-004 0.51 Acres U np av ed R oad Pa ved R oad U nm ain tained Road Cut Pr ivate Watershed Lands Tr ail Tot al A c r ea ge: 182.15 Pr o po s ed A c cess Easement Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-79 Meeting 20-16 July 22, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 9 AGENDA ITEM Authorization to enter into an Agreement with the University of California, Santa Cruz to conduct a Five-Year Mountain Lion Study and Site-Specific Management Plan GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS Authorize the General Manager to enter into an Agreement with the University of California, Santa Cruz for a base contract price of $500,000 to conduct a mountain lion collaring study for five years to assess the lion population and movement, provide annual updates and research findings at public meetings, and develop a site-specific management plan for reducing potential human-mountain lion conflicts in high risk areas. SUMMARY In response to ongoing sightings between mountain lions and preserve visitors, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has worked with regional mountain lion experts and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to determine a research-based approach for understanding and mitigating potential human-mountain lion conflicts. Researchers with the University of California, Santa Cruz Puma Project (Puma Project) are the foremost authorities on mountain lions in our region and are the only entity currently permitted to conduct mountain lion collaring activities in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The District is proposing to enter into an agreement with the University of California, Santa Cruz to develop and implement a five-year study of the factors that influence mountain lion and human interactions, and subsequently develop a site-specific management plan with recommendations for reducing the potential for human-mountain lion conflict at District preserves for a not-to-exceed total amount of $500,000. DISCUSSION Mountain lions are apex predators that support ecosystem health by regulating herbivores and supplying nutrients to scavengers and decomposers, which feed on carcasses left behind by lions. The District has undertaken considerable efforts to conserve mountain lion populations in the Santa Cruz Mountains and beyond. To date the District has preserved nearly 65,000 acres of prime mountain lion habitat, has provided grant funding and supported research efforts by the Puma Project, CDFW, Pathways for Wildlife, and the Bay Area Puma Project, supported legislation to prohibit the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, provided public outreach and education on mountain lions, and worked to develop the Highway 17 Wildlife Crossing project that will connect fragmented mountain lion habitat. Additional information on District efforts to conserve mountain lions can be found in the Mountain Lion Conservation Efforts Study Session Board Report (R-20-71). R-20-79 Page 2 Mountain lions are quiet, solitary and elusive, and typically avoid people by nature. However, as human population expands into mountain lion habitat, more frequent sightings may occur, and human/mountain lion encounters may increase. Mountain lion attacks on humans are extremely rare. However, attacks have occurred in California. Understanding mountain lion behavior and how to act responsibly in mountain lion country may greatly reduce potential conflict with these majestic animals. While the majority of human-mountain lion interactions are non-threatening, mountain lions have occasionally displayed aggressive behavior towards humans and can present a risk to public safety. The District carefully tracks all reported mountain lion observations on District lands. Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (RSA) has by far the most reported mountain lion observations by staff and the public compared to other District preserves with 131 total observations (excluding wildlife camera observations) in the last ten years (Attachment 1). Since 2015, the District has utilized Wildlife Response Protocols and coordinated with CDFW to respond to nine instances of concerning behavior from mountain lions at RSA. Responses vary depending on the circumstance, ranging from increased signage to trail/preserve closures to removal of the mountain lion in the event of an attack. Prior incidents include an unfortunate mountain lion attack on February 16, 2020 in which a child was injured by a mountain lion. The child’s injuries were minor, with an adult intervening by pushing the mountain lion away and likely preventing more serious injury. In response to this attack, CDFW captured the lion, used DNA evidence to confirm that the captured mountain lion was responsible for the attack, and made the decision to humanely euthanized the lion in the interest of public safety. While RSA has the largest number of human-mountain lion interactions on District lands, the potential for human-mountain lion interactions exists at almost all District preserves (excluding Ravenswood and the Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area where mountain lions are far less likely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat and prey base). While the risk to visitors remains extremely low, understanding the factors that influence human-mountain lion interactions will allow the District to reduce potential conflicts, with the goal of protecting both visitors and mountain lions. Research Approach The proposed research effort would involve a 5-year mountain lion collaring study with the following objectives: • Capture and collar mountain lions at top priority study sites (RSA, Fremont Older, and Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserves), secondary priority sites (Monte Bello, Foothills, and Los Trancos Open Space Preserves), and third priority sites (Saratoga Gap, Coal Creek and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves); • Estimate the number of individual mountain lions within RSA using a District-provided wildlife camera grid; • Compare collared mountain lion home ranges within the area to other parts of the Santa Cruz Mountains; • Assess factors influencing human-mountain lion interactions; • Experimentally test the efficacy of mountain lion behavioral modification methods; • Develop a habitat use map that depicts mountain lion space-use, with attention to overlap between high human use and high mountain lion use areas; and • Develop a site-specific human-mountain lion interaction management plan with actionable strategies for minimizing conflict that is informed by prior research and survey findings. R-20-79 Page 3 Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Management Plan The proposed mountain lion study will inform the development of a human-mountain lion interaction management plan that will guide District efforts to reduce potential conflicts between preserve visitors and mountain lions. Potential strategies will be dependent on research results and may include the following: • Preserve access modifications (by type, number, time of day, trail location, etc.); • Habitat modifications along trails to reduce vegetative cover and discourage mountain lion activity in areas with high levels of human use; and • Mountain lion behavioral modification methods, including the use of deterrents to discourage mountain lion activity in areas with high levels of human use. Contractor Selection In March of 2020, District staff collaborated with the following regional mountain lion experts to discuss potential research opportunities that would enhance the scientific understanding of human-mountain lion interactions: • Dr. Chris Wilmers of the Puma Project; • Dr. Winston Vickers of the University of California Davis; • Dr. Veronica Yovovich of University of California Berkeley; • Dr. Carolyn Whitesell of the University of California Cooperative Extension; and • Dr. Justin Dellinger who is the lead mountain lion researcher with CDFW. Through this process the District determined that the Puma Project was the appropriate organization to lead this research effort as they have the local expertise, are supported by CDFW, and currently hold a Scientific Collection Permit (SCP) for the study area to conduct mountain lion collaring activities. Collaring and tracking data are essential to the success of this project. It can take up to three years to obtain an SCP from CDFW and it is unlikely that CDFW would issue an additional SCP to another researcher for mountain lion collaring activities within the same geographical region to avoid the potential for interference with ongoing research and to promote building upon existing data collection in the region. The proposed budget for this project would provide funding for the following: • Research technicians who will perform tasks associated with capturing and collaring mountain lions during the first three years of the study; • Postdoctoral fellow, for years four and five, tasked with analyzing the data generated by the study and writing reports and associated publications; • Field equipment; and • Gas and vehicle mileage. In addition, Primary Investigator, Dr. Chris Wilmers, will act as the project lead for the University of California Santa Cruz. R-20-79 Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT There are sufficient funds in the adopted Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) budget to cover the cost of the recommendation. Funds to complete the contract work in future years will be proposed as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was first introduced at the July 8, 2020 Special Board Meeting regarding the District’s Mountain Lion Conservation Efforts, indicating that this item and agreement would come before the full Board for consideration on July 22, 2020. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public notice was sent to the Resource Management interested parties lists by postal or electronic mail. CEQA COMPLIANCE This project consists of biological research to be conducted on District lands by qualified biological professionals under a study design approved by CDFW. This project is categorically exempt from CEQA as it consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. The research project and associate activities are strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action that a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded (CEQA Guidelines section 15306). Any proposed future actions of the District will be subject to environmental review to be completed at a later date, prior to implementation. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board of Directors, the General Manager will execute an agreement with the University of California, Santa Cruz, to conduct a mountain lion collaring study for five years, provide annual updates and research findings at public meetings, and develop a site- specific management plan for reducing human-mountain lion conflict in high risk areas. Attachment 1. Reported mountain lion sightings by preserve Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department Prepared by: Matt Sharp Chaney, Resource Management Specialist II Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist R-20-79 Page 5 Contact Person: Matt Sharp Chaney, Resource Management Specialist II Graphics prepared by: Rachel Bu, Data Analyst I Rancho San Antonio OSP 131 Obser vations Monte Bello OSP 12 Obser vations Fremont Older OSP 15 Obser vations Sierra Azul OSP 23 Observations Skyline Ridge OSP 12 Observations Russian Ridge OSP 30 Observations Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP 11 Observations R AV E N S W O O D P I C C H E T T I R A N C H M I R A M O N T E S R I D G E P U L G A S R I D G E B E A R C R E E K R E D W O O D S E L C O R T E D E M A D E R A C R E E K L O N G R I D G E L A H O N D A C R E E K E L S E R E N O W I N D Y H I L L T U N I T A S C R E E K S T E V E N S C R E E K S H O R E L I N E N A T U R E S T U D Y A R E A S AR ATO G A GA P S T. J O S E P H 'S H I L L C O A L C R E E K L O S T R A N C O S F O O T H I L L S T E A G U E H I L L T H O R N E W O O D P a c i f i c O c e a n Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) 6/19/2020 Nu m b e r o f R e p o r t ed M o u n t ai n L i o n O bs e r v a t i o n s by P r e s e r v e (Ju n e 2 0 1 0 - J un e 2 0 2 0 ) Path: G:\Projects\Rancho_San_Antonio\MountainLionSightings\HeatMap\Most_Observations_MtnLion_20200619.mxd Created By: rbu 0 52.5 MilesI Pr eser v e w ith > 30 Obse r va tions Pr eser v e w ith 1 1 - 20 Obse r vat ion s 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. Prese r ve with <10 O bser vatio ns Prese r ve wit h 21 - 30 Ob ser v ati ons Other P rotec ted Lands Priv ate Pro per ty Di strict Boundar y Spher e o f Influenc e Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-80 Meeting 20-16 July 22, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 10 AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a Letter Commenting on the Proposed Redwood City Climate Action Plan GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Receive a Board Member request to consider a comment letter addressed to Redwood City regarding their proposed Redwood City Climate Action Plan. SUMMARY On July 1, 2020, Board President Karen Holman received a request from the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter to participate as a signatory on their comment letter regarding the proposed Redwood City 2030 Climate Action Plan (City CAP) (Attachment 1). President Holman requested placing this item on the agenda for Board consideration. If approved by the full Board, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) may sign onto the group sign-on letter (Attachment 2) or may consider sending its own letter (Attachment 3). Redwood City will be considering adoption the proposed City CAP at their July 27, 2020 Redwood City Council Meeting (Attachment 4). DISCUSSION Staff has reviewed the advocacy points contained within the Sierra Club sign-on letter and evaluated it for consistency with both the District’s Legislative Program (Attachment 5) and Climate Action Plan (District CAP) (Attachment 6). District Climate Action Plan Consistency: The main goal of both the District CAP and the City CAP is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A secondary goal is adaptation planning, which, while common to both plans, looks very different for an open space agency than it does for a city. The District’s adaptation planning efforts are summarized in the District CAP as follows: “Going forward, adaptation and resilience efforts will focus on assessing the vulnerability of natural resources to climate change, identifying land management strategies to increase resilience, continuing biological monitoring, and implementing restoration projects. This work is closely tied to much of what the Natural Resources Department manages, including prescribed and wildland fire, forest restoration, special status species, integrated pest management, and ongoing monitoring and restoration.” The Sierra Club letter calls on Redwood City to focus adaptation measures on protecting vulnerable people and infrastructure. Though certain proposed measures would protect open R-20-80 Page 2 space, such as restoring wetlands, limiting development on the shoreline, or adjusting land use policies in the wildland-urban interface, the stated purpose of these measures is primarily to protect suburban communities, avoid new construction within city boundaries that would be at risk from flooding or fire, and improve the resiliency of existing infrastructure. Redwood City lies within District boundaries, however, there are currently no District owned or managed properties within Redwood City. The city boundary abuts a portion of Edgewood Road between Edgewood County Park and Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. The City CAP is specifically focused on city-based resiliency and adaptation measures. These measures can help protect District lands by reducing city-wide greenhouse gas emissions that would aid in dampening the severity of climate change impacts at a regional scale, as well as reduce potential for fire ignition at the wildland-urban interface in city areas east of Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. The District’s CAP (Action Item 6 – Education), calls for the District to “Support and influence regional and state climate change-related policies and funding allocations.” Since GHG emissions result in regional impacts, the City CAP may be considered a “regional policy” of District interest. District Legislative Program Consistency: The primary focus of the Legislative Program is to support the District’s mission and forward annual Board-adopted goals. To this end, there are limited references to policy positions directed towards the built environment. • Goal 1: Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental protection vision with partners, Position #4: Promotes the use of urban infill and urban growth boundaries to avoid sprawl and prevent pressure on developing open spaces and further encroachment into the wildland-urban interface and open space buffer areas. Several provisions requested in the original sign-on letter fall outside of the Legislative Program. However, the reference to prohibiting development at the Redwood City Salt Ponds under Shoreline Adaptation is consistent with the June 9, 2010 Board resolution opposing the proposed redevelopment of the 1,436-acre Cargill-owned salt pond. (Attachment 7). Also, the request to “Adapt to flooding and sea level rise by restoring wetlands and prioritizing nature-based solutions, while creating recreational opportunities for the City and surrounding communities” can be considered consistent with Goal 2, Position #4: • Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands: Supports effective and comprehensive Districtwide, regional and statewide measures that respond to sea level rise and other effects of climate change and enhance ecological and community resilience. With regard to fire, the most applicable District policy position for the Redwood City CAP would be under Goal 2, Position #1: • Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands: Ensures reasonable setback requirements that allow minimum defensible space clearances to be met by private property owners to prevent catastrophic fires that damage habitats and pose a high public safety hazard. R-20-80 Page 3 Based on the analysis above, the Board of Directors may wish to submit a comment letter to Redwood City focused on the policy positions adopted as part of the annual Legislative Program. Please see Attachment 3 for Board consideration of such a Comment Letter. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated from a decision on this item. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW Due to the time-sensitive nature of the item there has been no prior Board Committee review. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS If the Board decides to sign onto the advocacy letter, staff will communicate with the letter’s author to ensure it is properly represented on the letter. Attachments: 1. Copy of email request from the Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter 2. Sign-on letter template for Redwood City Climate Action Plan 3. Draft District-only Comment Letter for Board Consideration 4. Draft Redwood City Climate Action Plan 5. Adopted District Legislative Program 6. Adopted District Climate Action Plan 7. June 9, 2010 Board resolution opposing the proposed redevelopment of the 1,436- acre Cargill-owned salt pond Responsible Department Head: Ana Ruiz, General Manager Prepared by: Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager From: Jennifer Chang Hetterly < __________> Subject: Joint letter on Redwood City Climate Action Plan Update Date: July 1, 2020 at 12:45:42 PM PDT To: Karen Holman <____________ > Dear Karen, I am writing to request your organization’s support on the joint statement below, urging Redwood City to take action to protect the community from the impacts of climate change in their upcoming Climate Action Plan Update for 2030. The Redwood City Council is considering adoption of its new Climate Action Plan on July 27. This plan will determine what the City is going to do to prepare for climate change over the next decade. Although Redwood City is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, the current draft does not include any measurable or actionable steps to adapt to sea level rise, flooding, or other climate risks like wildfires. Steps must be taken to prepare Redwood City for the climate threats that are already here. Please consider joining Redwood City Neighbors United, Green Foothills, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Save The Bay, and a growing list of organizations in signing the joint statement included below. Final sign-ons are requested by Friday, July 10. If you are able to sign on please reply to Maryann Tekverk at Save The Bay (mtekverk@savesfbay.org) with confirmation and a high quality logo. If you have questions, please reach out via email or phone at (208) 755-3962. Thank you, Jennifer Chang Hetterly Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter ATTACHMENT 1 [Logos – organizational sign-ons] Joint Statement to Redwood City Council commenting on Climate Action Plan Update 2030 Released [DATE] The Redwood City Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update for 2030 represents a critical opportunity for the City to set a course for climate adaptation locally and establish a standard in the region for resilient cities. We applaud Redwood City’s work to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including efforts to ensure that active and mass transportation are expanded and i nvesting in bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure, and safety programs. Redwood City should continue to lead by establishing ambitious goals that surpass California state standards for GHG emissions. In addressing adaptation to climate change, however, Redwood City has sadly fallen far short of where the City should be by this point. Climate change impacts are already occurring in Redwood City and surrounding communities. Redwood City should lead the B ay Area in adaptation as well as in emissions reduction by addressing the risks that Redwood City residents face from sea level rise, shoreline and inland flooding, extreme heat, wildfires, and other climate impacts. Redwood City must also address climat e equity in its 2030 CAP Update. Climate adaptation planning can either exacerbate existing disparities or help make our region more equitable through community-centered planning and protections against displacement. The ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) states that climate equity “ensures that all people have the opportunity to benefit equally from climate solutions, while not taking on an unequal burden of climate impacts.” Redwood City’s first CAP, completed in 2013, committed to develop “recommendations for the City’s climate adaptation planning process,” including engaging with stakeholders to “establish planning priorities, determine decision criteria, and build community support for taking acti on.” The undersigned organizations believe such an approach would have resulted in a comprehensive plan for adapting to climate change over the next decade. In the CAP 2030 Update, Redwood City should include specific and measurable climate adaptation actions to protect communities, homes, businesses, infrastructure, and the health of the San Francisco Bay. The 2030 CAP should include: ATTACHMENT 2 Shoreline Adaptation – Develop a shoreline vulnerability and opportunity assessment which includes the following measures: ● Adapt to flooding and sea level rise by restoring wetlands and prioritizing nature -based solutions, while creating recreational opportunities for the City and surrounding communities. ● Develop a shoreline management plan with associated adaptation strate gies using available resources including the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas. ● Prohibit new development on undeveloped baylands at risk of flooding based on sea level rise projections, including the Redwood City Salt Ponds. ● Protect public safety and critical infrastructure by requiring that new development in developed areas, and infrastructure supporting new development , are designed to be resilient based on mid-century sea-level rise projections and flooding projections due to major storm events. ● Develop guidelines and standards for infrastructure and buildings to be flood -proofed or capable of accommodating temporary flooding. ● Integrate climate change impacts into City planning, operations and capital improvement program project design and evaluation. Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) – Integrate GSI into upland and upstream areas to alleviate localized flooding and urban heat island effect. Strategies should include increasing tree canopy and installing rain gardens, bioretention swales, regional stormwater facilities, and similar strategies in the public right -of -way and on private development of all sizes. In addition to improving climate resilience, these strategies reduce polluted stormwater discharge into the creeks and Bay. Mitigate Wildfire Risk – Reduce wildfire risk in the urban-wildland interface by strengthening wildfire scenario planning, building codes, fuel management, and fire protection plans for development in fire-risk areas. Develop new land use policies and programs to prevent and reduce development in the Wildland Urban Interface and to harden existing homes to survive wildfires. The public deserves a CAP that prepares Redwood City and San Mateo County for clima te change over the next decade. In order to protect our communities and taxpayers from disastrous effects of hesitancy and inaction, please include these comprehensive adaptation measures in the 2030 CAP Update now, to equitably protect our communities fro m flooding and other climate change-associated threats. Organizations [sign ons will be listed here] ATTACHMENT 2 DATE Redwood City Council publiccomment@redwoodcity.org RE: Comments on the Redwood City Climate Action Plan Dear Redwood City Council, The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) supports the Redwood City Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update for 2030, representing a critical opportunity for Redwood City to set a course for local climate adaptation and establish a regional standard for resilient cities. We applaud Redwood City’s work to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including the proposed expansion and new investments in multi-modal/bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure, and safety programs. We encourage Redwood City to continue leading by establishing ambitious goals that surpass California state standards for GHG emissions. In Section 1.4.1 of the proposed Redwood City Climate Action Plan, under Sea Level Rise and Flooding, there is an opportunity to further mitigate the effects of sea level rise by expanding wetlands preservation and restoration. The preservation and restoration of the Cargill Redwood City Salt Ponds represents the most significant opportunity for Redwood City to meet its sea level adaption goals. Midpen requests that the goal of restoring the Redwood City Salt Ponds be specifically added to the CAP update. This goal is well aligned with the Sea Change San Mateo County Initiative and consistent with current and potential projects supported by the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District. To further strengthen Section 1.4.1, Midpen requests your consideration for the inclusion of the following elements into the CAP: • Restore wetlands and prioritize nature-based solutions to expand community resilience to sea level rise and flooding events; note that these areas also support outdoor recreational opportunities as an additional public benefit. • Develop a shoreline management plan with climate change adaptation strategies that draw upon available resources, including the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas. • Prohibit new development on undeveloped bay lands at risk of flooding based on sea level rise projections. Section 1.4.2 outlines the work Redwood City has been undertaking to minimize the risk of wildfire for its neighborhoods in the wildland-urban interface. Midpen commends the collaborative work Redwood City has pursued with the County and other stakeholder entities to educate the public about wildfire risk and encourage defensible space adoption. To further reduce wildfire risk, Midpen requests consideration for the following: • Strengthen wildfire scenario planning, building codes, fuel management, and fire protection plans for new development in fire-risk areas. • Develop new land use policies and programs that ensure defensible space buffers of structures within private property for private parcels that adjoin wildland areas, parks, and open spaces. • Include hardening requirements as part of building codes for existing homes that seek permits for additions, demolitions, and remodels to ensure that affected structure can survive a potential wildfire. Midpen values the work of our partners in limiting urban sprawl and encroachment into the wildland-urban interface, preserving open space, and adapting to sea level rise with nature-based solutions. Undeveloped bay lands and forested hillsides represent unique opportunities to enhance local and regional climate resiliency, while protecting iconic San Francisco Bay Area views, preserving fragile habitat, and providing new access opportunities for people to experience nature close to home – all of which enhance the quality of life for Bay Area residents. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Karen Holman President, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Board of Directors cc: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors ATTACHMENT 7 City of Redwood City 2030 Climate Action Plan Prepared in collaboration with City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County July 27, 2020 ATTACHMENT 3 Acknowledgements Redwood City Council Diane Howard, Mayor Shelly Masur, Vice Mayor Alicia C. Aguirre, Council Member Ian Bain, Council Member Janet Borgens, Council Member Giselle Hale, Council Member Diana Reddy, Council Member Environmental Initiatives Sub-Committee Ian Bain, Council Member Giselle Hale, Council Member City Manager Melissa Stevenson Diaz Redwood City Staff Alex Khojikian, Deputy City Manager Deanna La Croix, Executive Assistant to the City Manager Jennifer Yamaguma, Public Communications Manager Mark Muenzer, Community Development and Transportation Director Jessica Manzi, Transportation Manager Christina McTaggart, Building Official Terence Kyaw, Public Works Director Daniel Barros, Public Works Superintendent Justin Chapel, Public Works Superintendent Adrian Lee, Public Works Superintendent Sindy Mulyono-Danre, Public Works Superintendent Vicki Sherman, Environmental Initiatives Coordinator Kirk Gharda, Management Analyst Intern This climate action plan was developed using the Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite (RICAPS) funded by a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and by California utility customers, administered by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission and with matching funds provided by the City and County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). RICAPS Project Consultant: DNV GL ATTACHMENT 3 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3 1. Climate Action Strategies ………………………………………………………………………………… 5 1.1 Energy .......................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Transportation and Land Use ....................................................................................... 9 1.3 Solid Waste ………………………………………………………………………………….13 1.4 Adaptation .................................................................................................................. 15 2. Implementation .................................................................................................................... 18 2.1 Prioritizing and Selecting Measures for Action ........................................................... 18 2.2 Meeting Emissions Targets ........................................................................................ 21 2.3 Management of GHG Reduction Strategy .................................................................. 22 2.4 Public Participation and Community Engagement ..................................................... 22 3. Monitoring and Improvement ............................................................................................... 23 4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A. Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................. 25 Appendix B. Adaptation Planning for Climate Impacts ............................................................... 27 Appendix C. Baseline GHG Inventory and Forecast ................................................................... 30 Appendix D. RICAPS Menu of Measures ................................................................................... 43 Appendix E. Future Opportunities for Emissions Reduction ....................................................... 47 Appendix F. Summary of Funding Sources ................................................................................ 48 ATTACHMENT 3 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Redwood City’s 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) is designed to be our community’s roadmap for addressing climate change and for increasing our resiliency in adapting to the climate change impacts we are already experiencing today and will continue to face in the future. The compounded impacts of increased emissions have begun to manifest in the forms of sea level rise, longer wildfire seasons, extreme heat events, air pollution, an increase in the prevalence and strength of storms, and a decrease in the reliability of the water supply; all of which impact Redwood City directly. In California, aggressive climate change goals are set by the State to curb these emissions, with local governments implementing much of the policy. The City of Redwood City has taken a significant step toward a more sustainable future with the 2030 Climate Action Plan. This updated CAP builds on the efforts and achievements of the 2013 CAP by identifying actions and opportunities to reduce GHG emissions within the community and City operations to meet and exceed the State target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, with a target of 50% below 2005 levels by 2030. From 2020 to the target year of 2030, this Plan recommends that the City: • Reduce emissions associated with single-occupant vehicle transportation by focusing on mode shifts to walking, biking, and using transit; reducing trips altogether; and promoting the switch to electric vehicles (EVs). • Reduce emissions associated with the built environment by focusing on shifting to renewable energy sources through our Community Choice Aggregation program, Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), and new building requirements for solar installations; improving building energy efficiency in our codes and standards; switching from natural gas to electricity in our buildings; and promoting energy efficiency and water conservation in our homes and businesses. • Reduce emissions associated with solid waste by focusing on reducing the amount of material we send to landfill through increased composting and recycling, food rescue and recovery, and materials reduction and reuse. • Address emissions already in the atmosphere by focusing on composting and tree planting projects for sequestration and adaptation planning for sea level rise and flooding, wildfires, extreme heat and storm events, drought, and water supply adequacy. ATTACHMENT 3 4 The Climate Action Plan calls for 33 quantifiable emissions reduction measures for Redwood City to achieve the 2030 target. These measures were selected from a set of 47 measures developed for jurisdictions in the San Mateo County region by the City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) and promoted through the countywide Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite (RICAPS) initiative. A summary table of the measures is provided on pages 19 and 20 in Chapter 2. The City of Redwood City is poised to reap the benefits of a clean energy economy, with policies that can increase the demand for local green jobs. While an important first step, this Plan will remain a living document, to be updated as technology and policies progress, to support the City’s efforts to manage GHG emissions for a sustainable future for all. ATTACHMENT 3 5 1. Climate Action Strategies The City of Redwood City is pleased to present the following Climate Action Plan (Plan). This Plan is designed to be a roadmap for our community’s response to the challenges posed by climate change. Redwood City has committed to taking steps to reduce our emissions, implementing current environmental programs and services – and creating new ones – that support our community and families in doing the same. This Plan describes the measures the City is taking to lead by example in reducing communitywide GHG emissions and recommends new measures that will make our municipal government an even more efficient and resource conservation-minded organization. The Plan calls for continuing to implement, monitor, and evaluate a number of communitywide programs that can effectively reduce our emissions, such as the “smart” development patterns put forth in the City’s 2010 General Plan, our energy efficiency and water conservation programs and incentives, and our Complete Streets program. It outlines a schedule for reviewing and updating measures the City is currently taking, including our implementing our Community Choice Aggregation program, Green Building Codes and Standards, Citywide Transportation Plan, and Composting, Recycling, and Solid Waste Ordinances, not only to increase their effectiveness in reducing emissions, but also to better meet the changing needs of the City’s businesses and residents. Finally, the Plan outlines a set of measures for the City to consider undertaking in the future, as we assess our progress toward meeting our emissions targets over time. The sections below describe 33 specific measures to reduce Redwood City’s GHG emissions to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The measures are divided into the major emission sectors: Energy used in the built environment, transportation and mobile equipment emissions, and emissions associated with solid waste. Certain measures aim to reduce emissions from the community at large, while other measures focus specifically on municipal operations. All measures are assumed to lead to specific, quantifiable reduction of GHG emissions, except for the supporting measures such as inventorying emissions and updating the Plan. The final section introduces adaptation planning, which is the next step after climate action planning. ATTACHMENT 3 6 1.1 Energy This emissions sector – the energy used in the built environment – typically has the most immediately achievable and affordable reduction opportunities, and energy efficiency is typically the most cost-effective measure for GHG reductions. Thus, a sensible energy policy has in the past sought to first maximize energy efficiency and then to look to generating electricity with low-carbon fuels and renewable resources. This is referred to as the principle of “reduce, then produce.” However, Redwood City had the opportunity to adopt Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) in 2016 and began purchasing 100% clean, renewable electricity at competitive prices from Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) for all City facilities. Over 97% of the community participates in PCE, and no other measure in this Plan has the emissions impact of Redwood City residents purchasing Peninsula Clean Energy’s (PCE) renewable energy. By 2021, all of PCE’s energy will be GHG-free, making a deep impact on our communitywide emissions and helping us meet our 2030 reduction targets. The following section identifies the City’s General Plan goal and describes five municipal measures to encourage renewable energy, as well as continuing to promote energy efficiency, in both new and existing municipal facilities and operations. 1.1.1 Municipal Energy Measures Since 2001 Redwood City has participated in a number of energy efficiency programs that target municipal facilities for projects such as lighting and HVAC retrofits. The City has been participating in the San Mateo County Energy Watch Comprehensive Energy Audit Program since 2012-13, has completed a number of low- and no-cost projects over the years to improve energy efficiency in municipal facilities, and was awarded a $50,000 grant in 2018 to retrofit lighting in four City facilities. The City has at the same time been implementing a phased traffic signal and street light LED replacement program to reduce energy consumption and costs. In 2015, the City installed solar at Red Morton Community Center with no capital costs through a multi-agency group procurement process. The City is also taking the lead on green building, entering into a public-private partnership for the development of the Veterans Memorial/Senior Center-YMCA project with a target of LEED Platinum certification. In addition to participation in PCE, this Plan calls for continuing the audits and retrofits of municipal facilities through state, regional, county and utility programs. It further calls for identifying opportunities for additional solar and battery storage for City facilities. Along with these building-level measures, this Plan aims to introduce purchasing policies for energy efficient equipment and technology. By committing to energy efficiency in public facilities and day-to-day operations, the City creates a hedge against rising energy costs, positions itself to take advantage of renewable energy opportunities, and also acts as a model for community participation in similar residential and commercial energy efficiency programs. ATTACHMENT 3 7 General Plan Goal (NR-4): Maximize energy conservation and renewable energy production to reduce consumption of natural resources and fossil fuels. Community Choice Aggregation, Renewable Energy, and Energy Efficiency Measures Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) EM-1 Community Choice Aggregation: Municipality Continue to provide 100% renewable electricity to municipal facilities. -1,142 EM-2 Solar on Municipal Facilities Identify new or existing municipal facilities that are well suited to the installation of solar PV or solar hot water systems. Install systems where feasible. Use group purchasing power or purchase power agreements (PPAs) to lower cost. -146 EM-4 Energy Efficiency in Municipal Buildings Audit city facilities for energy efficiency opportunities and implement EE retrofits. Participate in San Mateo County Energy Watch and leverage benchmarking to identify opportunities for EE upgrades and track energy performance. Leverage other programs that provide funding. -373 EM-6 Energy Efficient Street Lighting Continue LED street light replacement program and replacement of parks and parking lot lighting. -112 EM-7 Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy: Energy Implement a sustainable purchasing policy that emphasizes the purchase of ENERGY STAR certified equipment – appliances, electronics, etc. -8 1.1.2 Community Energy Measures In the communitywide sector, as in the municipal sector, energy use in buildings and facilities provides the greatest opportunity for affordable emissions reductions. PCE plays a large role in reducing emissions in the community as well in municipal operations. Because of the relative affordability of energy efficiency measures and the fact that the same principle of “reduce, then produce” applies in the community as in municipal operations, there are a number of measures that focus on energy and water efficiency included along with renewable energy. Reducing energy use by implementing energy efficiency measures first means that renewable energy systems can be smaller and less expensive. Building electrification will also be a focus, i.e. moving away from natural gas and its associated emissions to all-electric construction. This section describes the communitywide measures that will promote clean energy and renewable energy production, alongside energy and water efficiency in both new and existing residential and commercial buildings. Community Choice Aggregation and Local Renewable Energy Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) EC-1 Community Choice Aggregation: Community Continue to provide renewable electricity and promote “opting up” to PCE’s ECO100 (100% renewable) service. -55,042 EC-2 Solar Incentives Provide incentives for solar installation through Bay Area SunShares Program or others. -5,778 ATTACHMENT 3 8 This Plan calls for continuing participation in existing residential and commercial energy efficiency and demand response programs offered by utilities and other agencies and adding energy conservation programs for residential and commercial in the mid-term. It also calls for adopting building reach codes effective in 2020 to promote building electrification and EV adoption. Along with reach codes, the Plan calls for providing incentives for electric panel upgrades and focusing outreach on solar and battery storage opportunities. Lastly, this Plan calls for a microgrid demonstration project to promote the importance of energy security and reliability especially with respect to climate change adaptation and resiliency. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs, Reach Codes, Incentives and Outreach Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) EC-5 Commercial Energy Efficiency Programs Promote participation in commercial energy efficiency programs and demand response programs offered by SMC Energy Watch and PG&E – including PGE’s appliance rebates, 0% energy efficiency financing and demand response programs. Encourage commercial energy audits. -491 EC-6 Residential Energy Efficiency Programs Promote participation in residential energy efficiency programs, including BayREN’s Home Upgrade program and PG&E’s efficient appliance rebates. Encourage residential energy audits. -860 EC-8 Commercial Energy Conservation Program Establish a voluntary commercial energy conservation program, encouraging minimum energy efficiency and water efficiency standards at the time of building sale. Transition to mandatory comprehensive energy assessments and benchmarking by registered energy assessors. -997 EC-9 Residential Energy Conservation Program Establish a voluntary residential energy conservation program, encouraging minimum energy efficiency and water efficiency standards at the time of building sale. Transition to mandatory comprehensive energy assessments by registered energy assessors. -696 EC-10 Green Building Policy: All Electric Update building code to promote the construction of all-electric new buildings. -21,006 EC-11 Electric Panel Upgrade Incentives Leverage incentives provided by PCE to assist residents in upgrading electric panels in order to accommodate all-electric technologies including solar PV, battery storage, air source heat pumps, heat pump water heaters, electric dryers, electric stoves and electric vehicles. -17,930 EC-12 Microgrid Demonstration Projects Identify microgrid demonstration project site. Provide education and outreach to stakeholders on the multiple benefits of microgrids, including reliability, cleaner energy and cost savings. -107 EC-13 Solar + Battery Storage Promotion Provide education, outreach, and incentives to stakeholders, including businesses, residents and contractors, on the benefits of pairing battery storage with solar PV systems. -3,451 Along with the residential and commercial rebates, incentives, and programs offered by utilities, the City has also encouraged local businesses to conserve energy and water in their operations ATTACHMENT 3 9 by participating in the San Mateo County Green Business Program. This program began as a six-month pilot program in 2007 and continues to be administered by the County today. Green Business Program Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) A-1 Green Business Program Promote San Mateo County Green Business program and set goals for participation. -294 Finally, a leader in water management, Redwood City successfully initiated a pilot water recycling project with South Bayside System Authority (SBSA) in 2000 to produce recycled water that meets health requirements and goals for distribution for specific uses. In addition in 2008, Redwood City adopted a Recycled Water Use Ordinance that requires recycled water use in internal separate plumbing for urinals and internal cooling towers; external landscaping on new apartments, townhouses, and condominiums and existing and remodeled commercial and industrial buildings; and on industrial, commercial, and governmental projects. This Plan accounts for water use reductions identified in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan and calls for continuing to participate in the existing water conservation programs while working on enforcement mechanisms for the Indoor and Outdoor Water Use Ordinances currently in effect. General Plan Goal (NR-2): Reduce water consumption through aggressive implementation of conservation policies and programs Indoor and Outdoor Water Use Ordinances Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) EW-1 Water Conservation Programs Promote BAWSCA residential water conservation rebate programs for items including high efficiency washing machines and toilets, rain barrels, sprinkler nozzles, irrigation controls and Lawn Be Gone (drought tolerant landscapes). -403 EW-2 Enforce Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Enforce Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. -172 1.2 Transportation and Land Use In 2005, 51 percent of Redwood City’s emissions stemmed from transportation. By 2015, it was up to 54 percent. That same year, travel on local roads and state highways represented 17 percent and 29 percent of the City’s total emissions respectively. Thus, reducing transportation emissions is a critical component of the climate action strategy. The following sections identify relevant General Plan goals and describe the municipal and community measures that will address transportation emissions. ATTACHMENT 3 10 1.2.1 Municipal Transportation Measures On the municipal side, transportation emissions largely come from either the municipal fleet or from employee commutes. The City of Redwood City has already adopted a number of municipal fleet and employee commute measures that reduce emissions, including adopting an efficient fleet policy, replacing gas-powered fleet passenger vehicles with hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles, and incentivizing commute alternatives for employees. The City has also begun switching out gas-powered mobile equipment to electric and battery-powered equipment to address off-road emissions. The City has also taken advantage of past grants for Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, installing 22 charging stations available to the public at City facilities including the Main Library, Redwood Shores Library, Red Morton Community Center, Jefferson Garage, and Marshall Street Garage. State and federal agencies are now beginning to focus on large-scale deployment of EV infrastructure and transition to EV fleets. This Plan calls for the City to consider an electric vehicle purchasing policy, focusing on the replacement of passenger vehicles and the installation of EV charging equipment in the short term, with heavier duty vehicles phased in over the long term as appropriate replacement models come to market. Redwood City’s robust Employee Commute Program incentivizes alternative transportation to work by subsidizing employees’ transit commute costs and by providing incentives for having used alternative commutes. The program is popular and this Plan calls for refining the outreach program and developing ways to increase participation. General Plan Goal (BE-31): Encourage development and implementation of strategies that minimize vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. Electric Fleet Policy and Employee Commute Program Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) TM-1 Municipal Fleet Electrification Policy Establish policy requiring the prioritization of electric vehicles and mobile equipment. -109 TM-3 Commute Alternatives Program: Municipal Continue commute alternatives program including pre-tax commuter benefits, transit subsidies, and carpool program. -4 1.2.2 Community Transportation and Land Use Measures While the municipal transportation section focused on vehicle fleet and employee commute measures, addressing communitywide transportation emissions is more complex. Not only does the City have limited control over the community’s transportation-related emissions, it is also technically difficult to collect data and attribute emissions to the correct jurisdictions in a region. For Redwood City’s part, the community transportation and land use measures are guided by ATTACHMENT 3 11 the same General Plan goal as the municipal measures, but the emphasis is on smarter land use and development patterns, improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and innovative programs that promote alternative transportation modes, as well as incentivizing EVs and EV charging infrastructure. Redwood City has been an area leader in developing infill, higher density, transportation- oriented and mixed-use development near transportation hubs and along transportation corridors. The award-winning 2010 General Plan, the Downtown Precise Plan, Stanford in Redwood City, the El Camino Real Corridor Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance include measures for increasing density and destination accessibility that result in decreased vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. This Plan accounts for the estimated emissions reductions associated with the existing General Plan, Downtown Precise Plan, and Zoning Ordinance and calls for the City to continue to implement, monitor, and evaluate the existing policies through 2030. The City’s Transportation Advisory Committee (formerly the Complete Streets Committee) has assisted the City since 2015 on increasing bicycle and pedestrian safety. This plan accounts for the emissions associated with enhancing bicycle routes to Stanford in Redwood City, launching the Roosevelt Traffic Calming Project, constructing a Hopkins Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Pilot Project, and developing a Transportation Demand Management policy to offset the impact of new developments among other improvements. The Transportation Advisory Committee includes a Safe Routes to School Subcommittee to coordinate efforts across various agencies, a Vision Zero Committee to increase safety, and an East/West Bikeway Ad Hoc Committee to develop a roadmap for a new bikeway between Alameda de las Pulgas and downtown. The City has provided one-time funding for Redwood City schools that includes traffic calming measures for the east/west bikeway. In addition to promoting alternative modes of transportation, Redwood City has also developed parking standards and parking management policies which address transportation-related emissions by encouraging walking, biking, and public transit use. In 2005, the City created the Downtown Parking Management Plan which helps reduce parking demand impacts on local and regional traffic levels with demand-based parking supply and pricing. The City has parking requirements for new development in the Downtown area that allow for reduced parking ratios, parking maximums, unbundled parking, and shared parking. This Plan accounts for emissions reductions associated with refining and updating the Parking Management Plan to respond to current community needs and parking conditions. The Climate Action Plan calls for the City to consider additional parking management strategies such as bicycle infrastructure improvements, parking cash-outs, and parking credits for car-sharing. ATTACHMENT 3 12 Smart Growth, Complete Streets, Parking Policies, and Safe Routes to School Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) TL-1 Smart Growth Development Policy Continue smart growth policy that prioritizes infill, higher density, transportation-oriented and mixed-use development. -4,228 TL-2 Walkable/Bikeable Streets Modify landscape to make walking and biking more desirable. Install bike lanes, bike parking, traffic calming measures, beautification, etc. -5,212 TL-4 Parking Policies Promoting Public Transit, Biking, and Walking Continue parking policies such as metered parking, reduced parking requirements for new development, and “unbundling” sales/leases of parking space to increase public transit use, biking, and walking. -9,695 TL-5 Safe Routes to School Program Support the City's Safe Route to Schools program by investing in enhancing bike trails and safe pedestrian routes to local schools. Promote the program to increase volunteer participation. -197 Redwood City also supports and provides services to the community to encourage different modes of transportation and to reduce VMT associated with transporting products to the local market. The City was a pilot agency in the regional bicycle share program, Bay Area Bike Share, and currently participates in Connect Redwood City, an initiative to encourage more people to use alternative commutes, which rolled out in 2013-2014. Redwood City has three free shuttle services from the downtown Caltrain station and adopted a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) which requires site-specific TDM programs to reduce project trips. The City also promotes a Farmers’ Market which encourages local purchasing and locally- grown food. This Plan calls for the City to develop a Bike Share and Emerging Mobility Ordinance which will account for emissions reductions associated with implementation of current and future car and bike share programs in Redwood City and also explore additional shuttle services for major development projects and continue supporting its Downtown Farmers’ Market, buying locally, and locally-grown food. Car and Bike Share Programs, Shuttle Service, and Farmers’ Markets Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) TL-3 Car/Bike Share Promotion Develop policies and incentives that attract bike and car sharing companies to establish service. -810 TL-6 Expand Local Shuttle Service Expand local shuttle service routes and/or frequency of service within city limits to connect areas not covered by public transit. -178 TL-7 Local Farmers’ Markets Promotion Encourage community farmers’ markets with locally-grown food and community gardens to reduce associated VMT. -23 Transportation and mobile emissions make up the majority of Redwood City’s emissions and these emissions are still growing in relative and absolute terms, as is the case statewide. To ATTACHMENT 3 13 combat this, the State has set its sights on incentivizing the adoption of electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging infrastructure in order to meet the goal of getting 5 million EVs on the road by 2030. The City will continue working towards making EV ownership and shared electric modes of transportation as convenient as possible by participating in programs such as SunShares that leverage buying power to offer discounts for Bay Area residents and working with partners like Peninsula Clean Energy to expand the EV charging station network. In addition, the City will explore ways to reduce off-road emissions from mobile equipment. Increase Electrically-Powered Transportation and Mobile Equipment Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) TL-8 Electric Vehicle Ownership Programs Establish community target for adoption rate of electric vehicles and explore strategies to reduce off-road and mobile equipment emissions. -2,321 TL-9 Expand EV Charging Infrastructure Expand EV charging infrastructure in public properties, multi- unit dwellings and workplaces. -32,522 TL-10 Green Building Policy: EV charging Update building code to increase the mandated percentage of parking spaces accommodating electric vehicle charging equipment and of parking spaces devoted to clean air vehicles. -3,650 TL-11 Electric Bikes/Scooter Share Promotion Consider allowing dockless e-scooter and e-bikes to operate in the City. Modify existing city infrastructure to accommodate shared e-scooter and e-bikes. -3,281 1.3 Solid Waste Reducing the amount of waste deposited into the landfill through material reuse, reduction, composting and recycling is an important strategy Redwood City can initiate to reduce GHG emissions. Some landfills capture as much methane as possible and combust it for electricity generation such as RethinkWaste’s Organics-to-Energy Pilot. However, for many landfills, much of the methane leaks to the atmosphere, a primary source of GHG emissions in the waste category. GHG emissions are also associated with product supply chains, so waste reduction and recycling become powerful tools for reducing emissions all along the consumer materials’ lifecycle. To address the issues of escalating waste production, Assembly Bill 341, requires local jurisdictions to meet a solid waste diversion goal of 75 percent and includes requirements for mandatory commercial recycling. Assembly Bill 1826 passed in 2014 required businesses and multi-family residences to recycle their organic waste. Senate Bill 1383, passed in 2016, requires a 50% reduction of organic waste by 2020, a 75% reduction of organic waste by 2025, and a 20% reduction of currently disposed edible food to be recovered for human consumption by 2025. The following sections identify the General Plan goal and describes the municipal and community measures that will address the State’s mandates. ATTACHMENT 3 14 1.3.1 Municipal Solid Waste Diversion To meet State solid waste diversion mandates for local jurisdictions, the City will seek to raise the diversion rate over time by gradually implementing zero waste policies and programs for municipal operations in advance of communitywide programs and ordinances. Zero waste refers to an approach to minimizing solid waste through a variety of source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting policies and programs. Actions would include, but are not limited to, establishing an Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy and a Zero Waste policy for municipal events, and continue requiring municipal recycling of construction and demolition debris. General Plan Goal (BE-45): Minimize the volume of solid waste that enters regional landfills. Solid Waste Diversion Target Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) WM-1 Municipal Zero Waste Policy Establish a policy to achieve 95% waste diversion rate in city operations. Provide appropriate bins and signage, organics recycling and education to public employees. -20 1.3.2 Community Solid Waste Diversion In addition to using the gradual establishment of municipal zero waste policies to promote communitywide waste reduction, recycling, and diversion, the City will seek to coordinate with San Mateo County phasing in implementation of the upcoming disposable food ware ordinance and food recovery programs in the short term; commercial recycling requirements as programs, reporting, and evaluation methods develop over the midterm; and other measures such as yard waste ordinances, pay-as-you-throw tiered rate structures, and community outreach programs such as the Zero Waste Party Pack program over the long term. Solid Waste Diversion Target Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) WC-1 Increase Waste Diversion Rate Achieve 90% waste diversion rate through promotion of traditional and new recycling and organics recycling programs, local enforcement of requirements, and sustainable vendors policy for public events. -631 ATTACHMENT 3 15 1.4 Adaptation To combat the direct impacts of climate change, Redwood City and its partners have been identifying the people and structures that are vulnerable to climate change, receiving input from stakeholders, planning for adaptability and resiliency to changing conditions, and developing implementation strategies to effectively address climate change. Until now, this 2030 Climate Action Plan update has gone over the various ways the City of Redwood City plans to reduce its emissions. However, the impacts of climate change are not theoretical. As such, the City will continue to address these growing threats using the General Plan’s Guiding Principles. These impacts include but are not limited to increased sea level rise, flood risk, wildfire, extreme heat events, and resource adequacy. This section summarizes Redwood City’s analysis of these threats and the steps the City is taking to insure climate change resiliency. 1.4.1 Sea Level Rise and Flooding Redwood City is one of the most vulnerable cities in California to sea level rise. With 3.3 feet of sea level rise, 59% (8,308 of the City’s 14,043 land acres) of the City’s land would be vulnerable to flooding. This area currently houses 21,000 people, contains 568 commercial parcels, and nearly has $9 billion in assessed value. From the Port of Redwood City, to Oracle, to Kaiser Permanente, it is imperative for the City to plan for and try to prevent this cataclysmic damage. Most of this endangered acreage was historically natural wetlands. While a sizable portion of wetlands have been preserved, notably Bair Island, the low-lying areas are vulnerable to sea level rise and enhanced flooding. Redwood City is not alone in its vulnerability to sea level rise. A coalition of local governments, public agencies, non-profit organizations, and private companies have partnered with San Mateo County’s Office of Sustainability to launch the Sea Change SMC initiative. Redwood City is more likely to successfully adapt to sea level rise in this coalition because any realistic solution will need cross-jurisdictional cooperation. Sea Change SMC has already completed a countywide Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, which projected scenarios for Redwood City. In 2019, as a result of the Sea Change convenings, the cities and County of San Mateo came together and formed a Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District to address sea level rise, flooding, coastal erosion, and large-scale storm water infrastructure improvements through integrated regional planning, investment, and project implementation. 1.4.2 Wildfire Similar to former marshland development now being vulnerable to sea level rise, Redwood City’s Farm Hill district was built in woodland that is vulnerable to wildfire. Some of the landmarks vulnerable to wildfire in the Farm Hill district include Canada College, Easter Cross, Edgewood Park, Canyon Inn and the City’s Fire Station 12 located on Jefferson Avenue. ATTACHMENT 3 16 CalFire has designated much of the district as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). In this zone, Redwood City has 4,877 people, 1,174 buildings and an assessed $1,815,748,914 at risk of wildfire. While a wildfire in the Farm Hill district has a high chance of occurring in any given year, predicting when a wildfire will occur isn’t possible. Some of the factors that could cause a wildfire are: equipment use, power lines/electric power, and other factors as small as cigarette butts. Drought or high winds could radically enhance a wildfires destructive potential as well. Redwood City recognizes the severity of this problem and coordinating with the County and other agencies under the San Mateo County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan so that in the event of a wildfire, Redwood City residents are as safe as possible. The City has also been conducting public outreach on wildfire risk, the wildland-urban interface, and defensible space. Included in this Plan is a measure for a microgrid demonstration project to promote community resilience in response to the threat of wildfires and power shutdowns. 1.4.3 Extreme Heat Extreme Heat events, otherwise known as heat waves, are the top climate-related cause of death in San Mateo County. Four percent of San Mateo County’s population have heat related emergency room visits every year. In 2017, San Mateo County lost 3 residents due to extreme heat just on Labor Day. Higher average temperatures not only during the day, but during the night as well, expose Redwood City’s vulnerable residents to increased chances of heat related emergency room visits and death. These vulnerable populations are the youngest, aged 0-5, and the oldest, aged 65+, among us, in addition to diabetics, those with respiratory diseases, those in low-income households, and those active outdoors during heat waves. To combat this, Redwood City has set up 9 different cooling centers at libraries and community centers around the City. 1.4.4 Drought and Resource Adequacy Recent droughts in California have highlighted need for stable and readily available water supplies throughout the state. Climate change is projected to make our water collection systems less resilient. Redwood City purchases all of its potable water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which collects 85% of its water from the Hetch Hetchy watersheds and 15% from various Alameda County and San Mateo County watersheds. In wet years, SFPUC will sell Redwood City all of its needed drinking water. However, in drought years, SFPUC reserves the right to cut the water deliveries to its customers like Redwood City. In 2000, Redwood City launched a wide variety of water conservation and water recycling programs to restrict water demand and boost supply. The City’s recycled water program pilot ATTACHMENT 3 17 was launched, successfully delivering “tertiary” grade water to Redwood Shores customers. In 2003, the City Council approved the recycled water project, successfully delivering water today and designed to accommodate future water demand as well. Redwood City also has a goal for water storage within City borders in the event of a disaster. If Redwood City cannot access water sources outside of its jurisdiction, the City needs to have enough water stored within its jurisdiction to have one full day’s worth of water as well as the water needed for “fire flow” to put out fires. The City has completed connecting its various water tanks with pumping stations so water can be transported from one section of the City to another as needed. Redwood City continues to plan for future water needs and enhance the resiliency of our water system. 1.4.5 Sequestration Along with adapting to the climate impacts of GHG emissions, the City has the opportunity to offset carbon by sequestering emissions that could not be prevented in the first place. This kind of adaptation can provide multiple co-benefits to the City. For example, improving the urban canopy through tree planting can not only remove carbon from the atmosphere, but also help settle airborne particles during wildfire smoke events, reduce heat impacts, improve walkability, and beautify our community. Diverting and processing organic waste into compost to use on City trees and landscaped areas of parks and facilities not only sequesters carbon, but improves tree health, decreases soil erosion, water usage, herbicide and fertilizer usage, and increases stormwater recharge. Wetlands restoration projects and nature-based shoreline protection rather than engineered levee and seawall hardscapes not only act as a carbon sinks, they protect against sea level rise and flooding, preserve and increase wildlife habitat, and clean the water in the Bay. This Plan recommends maintaining Redwood City’s now 37-year designation as a Tree City USA, continuing the City’s partnership with CityTrees for education, outreach, advocacy, and tree planting events, and enhancing our existing organics collection, processing, and compost use on City landscapes. The Plan further recommends evaluating opportunities for soft shoreline protection through the City’s participation in the Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District. ATTACHMENT 3 18 2. Implementation The preceding chapter outlines and describes the goals and measures for achieving the community’s target of reducing emissions to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. This chapter outlines the main components of the process for putting this Plan into action and identifies specific actions that are recommended for implementation. 2.1 Prioritizing and Selecting Measures for Action There are a large number of measures and programs that Redwood City may implement to reduce GHG emissions. The measures recommended in this Plan were prioritized and selected, with public input, based on those that are likely to yield the greatest emissions reductions toward the City’s target, those that can be quantified using C/CAG tools, and those that are most feasible (implemented or partially implemented, ongoing, or planned by the City). The first step in the CAP update was to conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast. In 2009, Redwood City’s 2005 community and municipal GHG inventories were completed as part of a joint effort with ICLEI, Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network, and the County of San Mateo funded by C/CAG. For more information on the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast, see Appendix C. The second step in the process was to establish an emissions reduction target for the forecast year of 2030. The City’s target was chosen to align with the state’s target. The third step in the process was to determine the contribution that statewide emissions reduction initiatives will make toward meeting the City’s reduction target, and the fourth step involved identifying additional measures that the City can feasibly take to reduce the emissions remaining after accounting for reductions from statewide initiatives. This included a review of the City’s current programs and an estimate of associated emissions, as well as an evaluation of the 47 measures developed by C/CAG through the Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite (RICAPS) initiative. Appendix D identifies and describes the measures provided through RICAPS. Next, the City set up a general email and conducted two public workshops to collect input on measures to include in the Plan. For future planning, Appendix E describes potential measures that the City can consider along with ongoing Adaptation Planning (Appendix B) when updating this Plan, as funding or other resources becomes available, or as the measures recommended in this Plan are implemented. A summary of all recommended emission reduction measures is provided in Table 1 below. ATTACHMENT 3 19 Table 1: Summary of Recommended Measures Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) EC-1 Community Choice Aggregation: Community Through Peninsula Clean Energy, continue to provide greener renewable electricity to the community and promote “opting up” to PCE’s ECO100 (100% renewable) service. -55,042 EC-2 Solar Incentives Provide incentives for solar installation through Bay Area SunShares Program or others. -5,778 EC-5 Commercial Energy Efficiency Programs Promote participation in commercial energy efficiency programs and demand response programs offered by SMC Energy Watch and PG&E – including PGE’s appliance rebates, 0% energy efficiency financing and demand response programs. Encourage commercial energy audits. -491 EC-6 Residential Energy Efficiency Programs Promote participation in residential energy efficiency programs, including BayREN’s Home Upgrade program and PG&E’s efficient appliance rebates. Encourage residential energy audits. -860 EC-8 Commercial Energy Conservation Program Establish a voluntary commercial energy conservation program, encouraging minimum energy efficiency and water efficiency standards at the time of building sale. Transition to mandatory comprehensive energy assessments and benchmarking by registered energy assessors over time. -997 EC-9 Residential Energy Conservation Program Establish a voluntary residential energy conservation program, encouraging minimum energy efficiency and water efficiency standards at the time of building sale. -696 EC-10 Green Building Policy: All Electric Update building code to promote the construction of all-electric new buildings. -21,006 EC-11 Electric Panel Upgrade Incentives Leverage incentives provided by PCE to assist residents in upgrading electric panels in order to accommodate all-electric technologies including solar PV, battery storage, air source heat pumps, heat pump water heaters, electric dryers, electric stoves and electric vehicles. -17,930 EC-12 Microgrid Demonstration Projects Identify microgrid demonstration project site. Provide education and outreach to stakeholders on the multiple benefits of developing a microgrid, including reliability, cleaner energy and cost savings. -107 EC-13 Solar + Battery Storage Promotion Provide education and outreach to stakeholders, including businesses, residents and contractors, on the benefits of pairing battery storage with solar PV systems. -3,451 EM-1 Community Choice Aggregation: Municipality Continue to provide 100% renewable electricity to municipal facilities. -1,142 EM-2 Solar on Municipal Facilities Identify new or existing municipal facilities that are well suited to the installation of solar PV or solar hot water systems. Use group purchasing power or purchase power agreements (PPAs) to lower cost. -146 EM-4 Energy Efficiency in Municipal Buildings Audit city facilities for energy efficiency opportunities and implement EE retrofits. Participate in San Mateo County Energy Watch and leverage benchmarking to identify opportunities for EE upgrades and track energy performance. Leverage other programs that provide funding. -373 EM-6 Energy Efficient Street Lighting Continue LED street light replacement program and replacement of parks and parking lot lighting. -112 ATTACHMENT 3 20 Code Measure Name Detailed Description Reduction (MTCO2e) EM-7 Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy: Energy Implement a sustainable purchasing policy that emphasizes the purchase of ENERGY STAR certified equipment – appliances, electronics, etc. -8 TL-1 Smart Growth Development Policy Continue smart growth policy that prioritizes infill, higher density, transportation-oriented and mixed-use development. -4,228 TL-2 Walkable/Bikeable Streets Modify landscape to make walking and biking more desirable. Install bike lanes, bike parking, traffic calming measures, beautification, etc. -5,212 TL-3 Car/Bike Share Promotion Develop policies and incentives that attract bike and car sharing companies to establish service. -810 TL-4 Parking Policies Promoting Public Transit, Biking, and Walking Continue parking policies such as metered parking, reduced parking requirements for new development, and “unbundling” sales/leases of parking space to increase public transit use, biking, and walking. -9,695 TL-5 Safe Routes to School Program Support the City's Safe Route to Schools program by investing in enhancing bike trails and safe pedestrian routes to local schools. Promote the program to increase volunteer participation. -197 TL-6 Expand Local Shuttle Service Expand local shuttle service routes and/or frequency of service within city limits to connect areas not covered by public transit. -178 TL-7 Local Farmers’ Markets Promotion Encourage community farmers’ markets with locally-grown food and community gardens to reduce associated VMT. -23 TL-8 Electric Vehicle Ownership Programs Establish community target for adoption rate of electric vehicles. -2,321 TL-9 Expand EV Charging Infrastructure Expand EV charging infrastructure in public properties, multi-unit dwellings and workplaces. -32,522 TL-10 Green Building Policy: EV charging Update building code to increase the mandated percentage of parking spaces accommodating electric vehicle charging equipment and of parking spaces devoted to clean air vehicles. -3,650 TL-11 Electric Bikes/Scooter Share Promotion Consider allowing dockless e-scooter and e-bikes to operate in the City. Modify existing city infrastructure to accommodate shared e- scooter and e-bikes. -3,281 TM-1 Municipal Fleet Electrification Policy Establish policy requiring the prioritization of electric vehicles and explore strategies to reduce emissions from mobile equipment. -109 TM-3 Commute Alternatives Program: Municipal Continue commute alternatives program including pre-tax commuter benefits, transit subsidies, and carpool program. -4 WC-1 Increase Waste Diversion Rate Achieve 90% waste diversion rate through promotion of traditional and new recycling and organics recycling programs, local enforcement of requirements, and sustainable vendors policy for public events. -631 WM-1 Municipal Zero Waste Policy Establish a policy to achieve 95% waste diversion rate in city operations. Provide appropriate bins and signage, organics recycling and education to public employees. -20 EW-1 Water Conservation Programs Promote BAWSCA residential water conservation rebate programs for items including high efficiency washing machines and toilets, rain barrels, sprinkler nozzles, irrigation controls and Lawn Be Gone (drought tolerant landscapes). -403 EW-2 Enforce Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Enforce Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. -172 A-1 Green Business Program Promote San Mateo County Green Business program and set goals for participation. -294 ATTACHMENT 3 21 2.2 Meeting Emissions Targets The measures described in this Climate Action Plan, combined with statewide legislation and initiatives, will enable the City of Redwood City to reduce its emissions to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The table below shows the contribution of the major statewide emissions reduction initiatives combined with the proposed CAP measures.1 Based on the inventory and forecast, the City of Redwood City needs to achieve 350,562 MTCO2e of emissions reductions to meet the State goal of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (equivalent to 49% below 2005 levels). The estimated reductions described and accounted for in this Plan, including those from statewide measures, equal 365,857 MTCO2e, exceeding the minimum reductions required to meet the State’s target. Table 3: Meeting the 2030 Target State Initiative Sector Reduction in City’s Emissions Advanced Clean Cars Program Transportation 88,292 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Transportation 9,251 Caltrain Electrification Energy 1,440 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Energy 30,667 Zero Net Energy (ZNE) Construction Energy 54,658 SB 1383 Organic Waste Diversion Waste 9,663 Regional and Local Initiatives Sector Reduction in City’s Emissions Community Choice Aggregation: Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) Energy 55,042 2030 CAP Measures All sectors 116,844 A. Total Statewide State Initiative Emissions Reductions 193,970 B. Total Regional and Local Initiatives Reductions (PCE + 2030 CAP Emissions Reductions) 171,886 C. Total Expected Emissions Reductions by 2030 (A+B) 365,856 D. City Emissions Reduction Requirement for 2030 350,562 E. Meets/exceeds state goals? (C > D) Yes 1 AB 1493 (Pavley) refers to the Assembly Bill that directs the Air Resources Board to adopt standards that will achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles,” taking into account environmental, social, technological, and economic factors. LCFS refers to the State of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which mandates a 20 percent overall reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2030. Lastly, 50% RPS refers to the California Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires electric utilities to have 50 percent of their retail sales sourced from eligible renewable resources in 2030 and all subsequent years. ATTACHMENT 3 22 2.3 Management of GHG Reduction Strategy Support is needed to implement the Plan measures. This section details how the City can organize to put this Plan into action. Dedicate and direct staff to assist in and be responsible for CAP implementation The City can dedicate and direct additional staff to assist in and be responsible for implementation of this CAP. Continue to hold regular meetings of the Environmental Initiatives Subcommittee The Environmental Initiatives Subcommittee can meet quarterly to monitor progress on CAP measures. Maintain associations and partnerships that assist the City in implementing the CAP The City can maintain existing associations and partnerships with agencies and organizations such as PCE, C/CAG, San Mateo County Energy Watch Program, Energy Upgrade California in San Mateo County, Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, PG&E’s Sustainable Communities Team, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Sustainable San Mateo County, Sustainable Silicon Valley, and Thrive that can assist with funding and outreach for, monitoring and reporting on, and evaluating and updating CAP measures. 2.4 Public Participation and Community Engagement There are significant opportunities for the City to leverage existing programs funded by the State of California, PG&E, PCE, and others to support community efforts to improve energy efficiency, install renewable energy technologies, facilitate transit/biking/walking initiatives, purchase EVs and install EV charging infrastructure, and support households and businesses in taking other actions. This Plan calls for the City of Redwood City to distribute information widely on funding opportunities for residents and local businesses. Actions include more information posted on the City website and marketing materials posted at key locations, including City Hall and libraries. Additional actions include partnering with PG&E, PCE, and local water districts to further develop marketing presentations and workshops for the community. The general email climateactionplan@redwoodcity.org is open for public comment and feedback on Climate Action Plan measures. Funding opportunities that support public participation and community engagement are listed in Appendix E. ATTACHMENT 3 23 3. Monitoring and Improvement Monitoring progress is a critical component to ensure that the emissions targets are met. Should monitoring efforts find that the Climate Action Plan is falling short of its goals, the City will add additional mandatory and voluntary measures to the Plan in order to meet the Plan’s GHG reduction target. Ongoing monitoring is critical in order to demonstrate that the Plan is achieving its goals, thereby maintaining its status as a GHG Reduction Strategy over time. The following describes the monitoring and improvement program. • The Environmental Initiatives Coordinator will provide an annual update to the City Council, residents, and other interested stakeholders on progress toward implementing the Plan measures. The update will detail lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to the implementation strategy or the Plan itself. Following the update, a 30- day public comment period will be open to allow for community input on the implementation of the Plan. • The Environmental Initiatives Coordinator or dedicated staff will track programs, additions and modifications, as well as emissions, resource savings, or other effects of the programs implemented under the CAP measures. Programs will be summarized in the update and made available for public review. • The Environmental Initiatives Coordinator or designated staff will conduct a full GHG inventory at least every 5 years, and annually if feasible, according to the ICLEI community emissions protocol. The inventory will allow the city to understand how emissions levels are tracking in a top-down manner. PG&E and PCE can provide annual updates on electricity and natural gas usage to track associated GHG emissions. • The Environmental Initiatives Coordinator or designated staff will update the Plan as needed based on the results of the GHG inventory. Redwood City may modify and/or add new measures to ensure that the city is on track to meet or exceed its greenhouse gas reduction goals. ATTACHMENT 3 24 4. Conclusion This Plan is a strategic approach to sustainability, offering a suite of recommended actions that will engage all members of Redwood City’s community in this journey to safeguard our environment. The City Council’s Strategic Plan includes the Guiding Principle of Sustainablity: to proactively address environmental concerns to protect our community. By implementing and supporting climate protection and sustainability programs, the Climate Action Plan includes ideas for our City government to “walk the talk” by implementing practices that minimize the City’s own impacts on the environment and that serve as an example for the energy efficiency, water conservation and alternative transportation programs and services our Climate Action Plan calls for establishing in our community. This Climate Action Plan is an important step that builds on the City’s current efforts in environmental stewardship and protection. The proposed efforts of Redwood City are small when compared to the collective action of our citizenry. Sustainability requires more than just environmental protection; it will take leadership and partnership to deploy these actions. We invite you to join Redwood City’s transition to a clean environment, healthy community, and prosperous future. ATTACHMENT 3 25 Appendix A. Glossary of Terms AB32 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 ARB California Air Resources Board BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAU business as usual CAP Climate Action Plan CAPPA Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent CPUC California Public Utilities Commission EIR environmental impact review EV electric vehicle GHG greenhouse gas ICE internal combustion engine ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability kWh kilowatt hour MFD multifamily dwelling MPO metropolitan planning organization MT metric ton MTCO2e metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent PACE property-assessed clean energy PCE Peninsula Clean Energy PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PEHV plug-in electric hybrid vehicle Ppm parts per million PV photovoltaic ATTACHMENT 3 26 RICAPS Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite RPS renewable portfolio standard SLR sea level rise SOV single occupancy vehicle U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Title 24 California’s “Green” building code TNC transportation network companies (Lyft, Uber, etc.) TOD transit-oriented development VMT vehicle miles traveled ATTACHMENT 3 27 Appendix B. Adaptation Planning for Climate Impacts Effective adaptation planning and management entails dealing with uncertainty. It is a long-term process that should allow immediate action when necessary and adjust to changing conditions and new knowledge. Redwood City plans to initiate an inclusive planning process that ensures the resulting actions are feasible and widely accepted. Adaptation will likely be an ongoing process of planning, prioritization and specific project implementation. Five important steps to effective adaptation planning are summarized below: 1. Increase Public Awareness; Engage and Educate the Community It is critical that the public understand the magnitude of the challenge and why action is needed. The planning process should be inclusive of all stakeholders. Local outreach campaigns are needed to promote awareness of the dangers of heat exposure and recommend low-cost and low-GHG adaptation strategies. These efforts should leverage similar efforts undertaken at the regional, state, and federal levels. 2. Assess Vulnerability Understanding vulnerability to sea level rise and other climate change impacts is critical to developing adaptation effective strategies. A detailed vulnerability analysis should be performed to assess potential climate change impacts to infrastructure and natural systems. Future vulnerability of assets and infrastructure can then be assessed using conceptual models of shore response to sea level rise. Shore response models can be applied for one or more climate change scenarios and planning horizons, and a strategy for adapting can be developed with due consideration to priorities and time frames. Both short-term and long-term adaptation strategies should be identified. Level of risk can be categorized in terms of likelihood of damage within the forecasting period and the severity of the damages. This allows planners to prioritize their response to sea level rise. The vulnerability assessment can also provide a framework for agency and community education and participation, feed into other planning documents, and identify funding needs. 3. Establish Goals, Criteria and Planning Principles Engage with stakeholders to establish planning priorities, determine decision criteria, and build community support for taking action. Rank physical and natural assets for preservation efforts. Where possible, look for situations where a mitigation action has adaptation co-benefits (e.g., planting trees to reduce urban heat islands while sequestering carbon and providing habitat). 4. Develop Adaptation Plan Identify specific strategies, develop actions and cost estimates, and prioritize actions to increase local resilience of City infrastructure and critical assets, including natural systems like wetlands ATTACHMENT 3 28 and urban forests. Look for synergies between natural processes and engineering solutions. There is a continuum of strategies available to manage sea level rise, ranging from coastal armoring (levees, seawalls, etc.) to elevated development to a managed retreat or abandonment of low-lying development. An adaptation plan should include a prioritized list of actions (e.g. projects) with a timeline, capital expenditure plan, and framework for monitoring and adaptive management. 5. Ongoing Monitoring and Adaptive Management Reassess climate change vulnerabilities on a regular basis and modify actions accordingly. This includes monitoring the effectiveness of current policies, strategies and actions, and keeping up with changing science, funding opportunities, and regulatory actions. A menu of potential adaptation strategies and measures is provided in the table below. Adaptation Strategies and Measures Climate Change Impacts Sample Adaptation Measures Sea Level Rise Risks to existing facilities, natural systems, private property and public infrastructure • Educate and engage the community on the need for long-range planning • Partner or collaborate with other jurisdictions and agencies to increase awareness and build community support for action • Identify funding mechanisms and seek public-private partnerships where interests converge • Use natural backshore wave-buffering processes to reduce wave erosion and run-up on levees • Increase or maintain the buffering capacity of tidal wetlands to protect against storm surges and keep pace with sea-level rise • Move levees further inland to allow marshes and mudflats to naturally transgress landward • Protect and restore wetlands that provide vital habitat and carbon storage, and allow for landward migration of habitat over time • Do coastal armoring with levees and seawalls to protect vital infrastructure from erosion, inundation, and flooding Extreme Heat Events Risks to public health and infrastructure • Identify vulnerable communities and develop emergency preparedness plan • Establish cooling centers, especially for vulnerable populations • Reduce urban heat islands through use of cool roofs and other reflective surfaces • Do targeted tree planting and enact new requirements for shading in new parking lots and other large paved areas • Reduce risk of wildfires through fuels reduction in the urban- wild land interface ATTACHMENT 3 29 Regional Drought Risks to reliable water supply, and potential conflicts between urban and agriculture users • Increase capacity for community water storage • Promote local water conservation • Make water conservation a top priority for agriculture in the region • Do water reclamation and reuse projects Increased Flooding and Severe Weather Events Risks to public health, private property, public infrastructure, and ecosystems • Integrate local flood management plans with adaptation planning • Identify vulnerable communities and develop emergency preparedness plans • Establish local land use policies that decrease flood risk; avoid building in high-risk areas • Make modifications to storm water system routing and storage • Develop storage areas for peak flows • Maximize use of bioswales and permeable surfaces in both greenscape and hardscape areas to improve aquifer recharge and mitigate flooding from storm water Air Quality and Other Public Health Concerns • Restrict use of fireplaces and open fires on high-risk days • Monitor potential threats to public health, including new diseases, and develop public awareness Threats to Species, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem Services • Design urban forest program to improve biodiversity, provide heat relief, and sequester carbon • Preserve wetlands, salt marshes, and other critical coastal habitats Risks to Local Agriculture and Food Supply • Promote conservation of local agricultural land • Promote the use of public and private land and rooftops for producing food • Promote the planting of fruit and nut trees • Support local farmers markets by providing incentives such as reduced costs for permits and support in attaining electronic benefit transfer (EBT) point-of-sale terminals • Provide incentives and remove regulatory obstacles to encourage animal husbandry and local food production and distribution • Provide and promote educational opportunities for residents at all levels of the educational system (preschool through college) to gain skills in organic gardening; fruit production; animal husbandry; food preservation and cooking; and affordable, healthy eating • Develop a city-run or city-supported food gleaning program that organizes volunteers or compensates workers to collect food from trees and shrubs on land owned by cities or within cities to distribute through food banks and other local distribution channels • Reduce food waste by implementing a local composting program where all food scraps, food-soiled paper, waxed cardboard, wood crates and landscape trimmings from markets, restaurants, homes, hotels, and schools, would be collected and made available for distribution to rural or urban gardeners ATTACHMENT 3 30 Appendix C. Baseline GHG Inventory and Forecast The emissions inventory provides an important foundation for the Climate Action Plan, providing a baseline year, 2005, against which progress toward the City goal of reducing GHG emissions 50 percent by 2030 can be measured. The completed Plan includes a business-as-usual (BAU) forecast of GHG emissions, which will enable the City to estimate the amount of emissions reductions needed to meet its goal. 1. Inventory Sources and Data Collection Process An inventory of GHG emissions requires the collection of information (data) from a variety of sectors and sources. The emissions inventory completed for the City of Redwood City follows the standard outlined in the BAAQMD’s GHG Plan Level Quantification Guidance (dated May 2012), as well as the Local Government Operations Protocol 2. Table 1 summarizes the sectors, emissions sources, and energy types included in our GHG inventory. Table 1: Sectors and Emissions in the GHG Inventory Sector Emissions sources Energy types Residential Energy and water use in residential buildings Electricity Natural gas Commercial Energy and water use in commercial, government and institutional buildings Electricity Natural gas Industrial Energy and water use in industrial facilities, and processes Electricity Natural gas Transportation and Land Use* All road vehicles Public transportation Light rail Off-road vehicles/equipment Gasoline Diesel Compressed natural gas Liquefied natural gas Biodiesel Waste Landfills Waste stream Landfill gas (methane) Water Water Pumps Sewage/wastewater management Irrigation/sprinkler system Electricity Natural Gas * Some sectors may be updated in a new version of the BAAQMD GHG Plan Level Quantification Guidance.3 While the BAAQMD GHG Plan Level Guidance recommends the inclusion of GHG emissions from water processing and delivery that occurs outside of the city’s boundary, these emissions are not included in Redwood City’s baseline inventory due to lack of accurate data on water usage in the City of Redwood City in the baseline year, and lack of data on the energy used for water processing and delivery in the baseline year. The following are emission sources that are 2 Local Government Operations Protocol – For the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories (Version 1.0). Developed in partnership by California Air Resources Board, California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, and The Climate Registry. September 2008. Note that a newer version (version 1.1, dated May 2010) of the LGOP is available; however, at the time the GHG inventory was completed for the City of Redwood City, version 1.0 was the only version available. 3 For updates to the GHG Plan Level Quantification Guidance, check the BAAQMD website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx ATTACHMENT 3 31 mentioned in the BAAQMD GHG Plan Level Guidance, but were excluded from the City’s inventory because they are inventoried separately or due to lack of data: Sea ports, non-road vehicle use (planes, trains, ships), and water travel. Air emissions at the Port of Redwood City were quantified with the Bay Planning Coalition through BAAQMD’s “Green Ports Initiative.” ICLEI has since developed the U.S. Community Protocol 4, the first U.S.-specific protocol for developing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions estimates. All future inventories should utilize this protocol. Future inventories will also utilize the most recent version of the Local Government Operations Protocol, as well as any updated guidance from the BAAQMD. The industry-accepted methodology for quantifying a community-wide GHG emissions inventory focuses on emissions that occur from combustion sources within city limits and from electricity consumption. In the future, there may be the opportunity and need to quantity GHG emissions associated with the goods and products procured by communities and its residents. This type of lifecycle emissions accounting is not included in this Climate Action Plan. 2. Baseline Emissions Inventory for 2005 In the base year of 2005, the City of Redwood City emitted approximately 640,161 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) from the residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, waste, and municipal sectors.5 Municipal sector emissions are calculated and reported because the City of Redwood City generally has more control over these emissions than emissions from the other sectors, and thus the City of Redwood City can implement specific policies and programs to reduce these municipal emissions. However, in the context of the community-wide inventory, the municipal emissions are included in the commercial/industrial sector. Burning fossil fuels in vehicles and for energy use in buildings and facilities is the largest contributor to Redwood City’s GHG emissions. Table 2 provides a summary of total citywide (i.e. community and municipal) GHG emissions. 4 U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Version 1.0). Developed by ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. October 2012. 5 Carbon dioxide equivalent is a unit of measure that normalizes the varying climate warming potencies of all six GHG emissions, which are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). For example, one metric ton of methane is equivalent to 28 metric tons of CO2e. One metric ton of nitrous oxide is 261 metric tons of CO2e. ATTACHMENT 3 32 Table 1: 2005 Community Emissions by Sector Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons CO2e ) Percentage of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Residential 99,144 15% Commercial/Industrial 189,166 30% Transportation – Local roads 114,370 18% Transportation – State highways 175,367 27% Transportation – Off-road equipment 39,758 6% Generated Waste, Wastewater Treatment, and Ag Emissions 22,356 4% TOTAL 640,161 100% The residential, commercial, and industrial sectors represent emissions that result from electricity and natural gas used in both private- and public-sector buildings and facilities. The transportation sector includes emissions from private, commercial, and fleet vehicles driven within the City’s geographical boundaries as well as the emissions from transit vehicles and the City-owned fleet. Off-road equipment includes lawnmowers, garden equipment, and construction, industrial, and light commercial equipment. Figure 2 shows the proportion of Redwood City’s total GHG emissions from all major sources for 2005. Figure 2: Community Emissions by Sector 6 (2005) Residential 15% Commercial & Industrial 30% Transportation Local roads 18% Transportation State Highways 27% Transportation Off-road equipment 6% Waste, Water, & Agricultural 4% 6 While Redwood City’s water emissions are not displayed separately in the chart above, they have been accounted for in the commercial/industrial and residential building energy sectors. ATTACHMENT 3 33 As shown above, the two largest categories of emissions are related to transportation (highway travel, local travel, and off-road equipment) and building energy use (both residential and commercial & industrial). 2.1 Electricity and Natural Gas Emissions In 2005, electricity and natural gas use for buildings and facilities accounted for 45 percent of Redwood City’s total emissions. Residential buildings accounted for 15 percent (99,144 MTCO2e), commercial/industrial facilities (including municipal facilities) accounted for 24 percent (149,810 MTCO2e), and direct access energy use accounted for 6 percent (39,356 MTCO2e). Direct access is when end use customer buys electricity or natural gas on the wholesale market, rather than from PG&E. Of the total 288,310 MTCO2e emitted, 59 percent (169,446 MTCO2e) was the result of electricity consumption, and 41 percent (118,864 MTCO2e) was the result of natural gas consumption. Figure 3: Building Energy Use – Fuel Type Buildings Electricity 59% Buildings Natural Gas 41% It is important to note that emissions associated with the generation of electricity, which make up a significant portion of the greenhouse gasses associated with building energy, can vary widely from year to year. The GHG emissions associated with electricity use is based on an emissions factor specific to PG&E’s territory and is calculated annually by PG&E and then made available to Cities. The source of the emission factor used for the 2005 baseline inventory is the PG&E Power/Utility Protocol (PUP) spreadsheet of the PG&E California Climate Action Registry Report. In future inventory years, the emission factor may be found in the Additional Optional Information tab of PG&E’s Electric Power Sector report spreadsheet, which is part of PG&E’s Report to The Climate Registry. PG&E’s specific emissions factor is calculated by dividing ATTACHMENT 3 34 PG&E’s total emissions from their power plants (in pounds of CO2) by the total amount of electricity (in megawatt-hours or MWh) delivered to end users. This factor varies year over year because PG&E’s electricity sources change. For instance, the utility specific emissions factor for PG&E in 2006 was 455.81 lbs/MWh whereas in 2008 it was 641.35 lbs/MWh. For PG&E, the variance is typically dependent on the availability of hydroelectric resources. During low precipitation years, there is less water available to generate emissions free hydropower. Because of this, PG&E must compensate by supplying more electricity generated from natural gas or coal. For the 2005 baseline inventory, the 2005 emissions factor was used. For future inventories, a three-year average emissions factor could be used to address the large variance that may occur from year to year. Emissions from natural gas usage are calculated using the emissions factors from the Local Government Operations Protocol (version 1.0), Tables G.1 and G.3. 2.2 Transportation Emissions In 2005, transportation emissions accounted for 49 percent of Redwood City’s total emissions. Travel on local roads accounted for 17 percent (114,370 MTCO2e), travel on state highways within city limits accounted for 26 percent (175,367 MTCO2e), and emissions from off-road equipment, such as lawn and garden equipment and construction and industrial equipment, accounted for 6 percent (39,758 MTCO2e). Agricultural equipment emissions were not included in this sector. On-road transportation emissions are based on figures for total VMT for the City of Redwood City provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and calculated from 2005 California Public Road Data, Highway Performance Monitoring System, State of California, Department of Transportation and Caltrans GIS data of state highway road segments divided into jurisdictional segments. Off-road equipment emissions data is calculated from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, using EMFAC 2007 as a proxy for unavailable 2005 data. ATTACHMENT 3 35 Figure 4: Transportation Emissions – Highways v. Local Travel State Highways 61% Local Roads 39% Figure 5: Transportation Emissions – Residential v. Commercial Off-road Equipment Off-Road Commercial 96% Off-Road Residential 4% 2.3 Solid Waste In 2005, Redwood City sent 112,998 tons of solid waste to landfills, resulting in 20,630 MTCO2e. Another 203 MTCO2e of emissions are estimated from the 81,442 tons of alternative daily cover (ADC) used on the surface of the active face of municipal landfills to control odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. Together, landfilled solid waste and ADC accounted for approximately 3 percent of Redwood City’s total emissions. ATTACHMENT 3 36 Emissions from waste result from organic materials decomposing in the anaerobic environment of a landfill that produces methane—a GHG 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Organic materials (e.g., paper, plant debris, food waste, and so forth) generate methane within the anaerobic environment of a landfill while non-organic materials do not (e.g., metal, glass, and so on). Table 3 shows the approximate breakdown of the materials Redwood City sent to landfills in 2005. Materials that do not release GHGs as they decompose are included in the “All Other Waste” category. Table 2: Assumed Waste Composition 7 Waste Type Waste Share Paper Products 21.0 % Food Waste 14.6 % Plant Debris 6.9 % Wood/Textiles 21.8 % All Other Waste 35.7 % Total 100 % 2.4 Wastewater Treatment Emissions from the wastewater treatment plant located in Redwood City are approximately 1,523 MTCO2e/year, which is less than one-half of one percent of total emissions in 2005. There are three types of GHG emissions included: 1) stationary methane from incomplete combustion of digester gas, 2) process emissions from the wastewater treatment without nitrification/denitrification, and 3) process emissions from effluent discharge to rivers and estuaries. Emissions were calculated using LGOP’s methodology for Wastewater Treatment Facilities. 2.5 Agriculture Agriculture emissions totaled 594 MTCO2e/year, which is 0.1 percent of total emissions in 2005, and are based on the total amount of agricultural land in Redwood City. Agriculture emissions are due to four categories of activities: Agricultural equipment, animal waste, soil management, and biomass burning. 2.6 Municipal Operations In 2005, Redwood City’s municipal operations generated 8,059 MTCO2e, accounting for slightly over 1 percent of the city’s total emissions. Table 4 shows that municipal buildings and facilities 7 Waste characterization: CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. This state average waste characterization accounts for residential, commercial and self-haul waste. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097 ATTACHMENT 3 37 were the largest source of emissions from government operations, accounting for over a quarter of the total, followed by employee commute at just under a quarter, vehicle fleet at 23 percent, and public lighting at 13 percent. Table 3: 2005 Redwood City Government Operations Emissions by Sector Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons CO2e) Buildings and Facilities 2,046 Employee Commute 1,991 Vehicle Fleet 1,818 Public lighting 1,011 Wastewater and Water Transport 664 Government-generated solid waste 529 TOTAL 8,059 Figure 6: Municipal Operations – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Buildings & Facilities 25% Employee Commute 25% Vehicle Fleet 23% Public Lighting 13% Water 8% Waste 7% 2.7 Emissions Forecast for 2030 Based on the 2005 community and municipal operations emissions inventories, the City of Redwood City projected a forecast of future emissions for the year 2030. The emission forecast represents a “business-as-usual” prediction of how GHG emissions would grow in the absence of GHG policy. Conducting an emissions forecast is essential for developing the Climate Action Plan because one must compare future reductions with future emissions levels, not current levels. ATTACHMENT 3 38 The projected business-as-usual GHG emissions are based on the emissions from the existing growth pattern and general plan prior to the adoption of this climate action plan. More specifically, business-as-usual emissions would occur if the City of Redwood City were to continue its 2005 patterns of travel, energy and water consumption, and waste generation and disposal. Therefore, the business-as-usual emissions are projected in the absence of any mitigation measures, policies or actions that would reduce emissions over time, including landmark state legislation described in section 1.3. Programs, policies, and measures implemented after 2005 are considered beyond business-as-usual. The projections from the baseline year of 2005 uses growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors. Tables 5 and 7 below summarizes the results of the forecast. Table 4: Redwood City “Business as Usual” Emissions Forecast for 2030 Emissions Sources 2005 (MTCO2) 2010 (MTCO2) 2015 (MTCO2) 2020 (MTCO2) 2030 (MTCO2) Residential 99,144 98,215 80,694 87,596 96,220 Commercial/Industrial 189,166 202,922 172,465 186,097 218,290 Transportation 329,495 300,405 324,952 331,994 346,540 Waste 22,356 14,219 12,171 13,178 14,899 Water 0 1,569 894 968 1,095 TOTAL 640,161 617,330 591,176 619,833 677,044 We projected the emissions forecast for each sector, because specific factors affect each sector differently (e.g. new building energy codes or new fuel economy standards for vehicles). This approach provides a better approximation of future emissions. The following points explain how the emissions forecast was estimated for each sector: • For the residential energy sector, the compounded annual population growth rate was calculated from 2005 through 2030 using population projections from the US Census, the 2010 Redwood City General Plan, and Plan Bay Area.8 • For the commercial energy sector, the City of Redwood City relied on the analysis contained within “California Energy Demand 2008-2018: Staff Revised Forecast,”9 a report by the California Energy Commission (CEC), which shows that commercial floor space and the number of jobs have closely tracked the growth in energy use in the commercial sector. The compounded annual growth in energy use in the commercial 8 https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/plan-bay-area-2040/plan-bay-area 9 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-015/CEC-200-2007-015-SF2.PDF ATTACHMENT 3 39 sector from 2005 to 2030 was calculated using regional job projections for City of Redwood City from the Redwood City General Plan and Plan Bay Area. • Emissions from the transportation sector are largely determined by growth in on-road vehicle miles traveled (VMT). For transportation, the City of Redwood City relied on jurisdiction-specific VMT projections from Plan Bay Area. • For waste-related emissions growth, the primary determinate for growth in emissions for the waste sector is population. Therefore, the compounded annual population growth rate for 2005 to 2030 (the same as the residential sector projection) was used to estimate future emissions in the waste sector. 3. Emission Reduction Targets The California AB 32 Scoping Plan seeks to bring California to a low carbon future, reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020. As part of that reduction, the plan asks municipal governments to reduce their emissions by at least 15 percent by 2020 compared with current levels (current levels are defined as 2008 levels or earlier). The plan also directs local governments to assist the state in meeting California’s emissions goals. Many cities have consequently adopted community-wide emissions reduction targets at least 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Further, in 2016, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. A second update to the Scoping Plan was released by the Air Resource Board (ARB) in 2017 to reflect the 2030 target. This Climate Action Plan summarizes the actions that City of Redwood City is planning to take to reduce emissions within our community in alignment with SB 32. 3.1 Reductions from State-Level Actions In addition to the actions outlined here, regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions at the state and regional levels will also contribute to emissions reductions in Redwood City. For example, the Advanced Clean Cars Program is a set of regulations adopted to control emissions from passenger vehicles, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard establishes declining targets for GHG emissions from fuel sold in California markets, and the California Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandates that half of electricity sold by the State’s investor-owned utilities be generated from renewable resources by 2030. These actions are summarized in Section 2.2 of this Plan. The impact of state-level actions on reducing local emissions is significant, and is shown in relation to Redwood City’s emissions baseline, business-as-usual forecast, and reduction target in Figure 7. A summary of the expected emission reductions from state programs is provided in Table 6 below. ATTACHMENT 3 40 Table 5: Total Emission Reductions from State of California Programs State Initiative Sector % Reduction from 2030 BAU Emissions in Sector 2030 BAU Emissions in Applicable Sector (MT CO2e) Reduction in City’s Emissions by 2030 (MT CO2e) Advanced Clean Cars Program On-Road Transportation -30.4% 290,682 -88,292 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Off-Road Transportation -17.1% 54,036 -9,251 Caltrain Electrification Caltrain -89.1% 1,615 -1,440 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) All Electricity -20.5% 149,431 -30,667 ZNE 100% New Residential Construction by 2020 Residential Energy -4.7% 96,220 -4,488 ZNE 50% Existing Commercial Construction by 2030 Non-Residential Energy -23.0% 218,290 -50,170 Organic Waste Diversion SB 1383 Disposed Waste -79.0% 12,235 -9,663 All State Measures: -193,970 3.2 The City of Redwood City Reduction Target The City of Redwood City is committed to an emissions reduction target of 50 percent below the baseline 2005 levels by 2030. The goal was selected to be consistent with the Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which sets a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels, equivalent to 49% below 2005 levels, and because it is achievable by City-supported measures identified in the CAP. Figure 7 below illustrates how the business-as-usual emissions are estimated to increase, thus widening the emissions reductions needed by 2030. The figure also shows the emissions reductions expected from state- level actions, and the reductions needed to reach the City of Redwood City’s emission target. Approximately 53 percent of the emission reductions needed to achieve the City’s target of 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 will come from state-level policies and actions, including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which reduces the carbon intensity of The City of Redwood City is committing to reducing community- wide greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 by supplementing state-wide actions ATTACHMENT 3 41 transportation fuels, and the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires that at least 50 percent of the total energy provided by utilities and other energy services comes from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Another 16% will come from an increasingly renewable portfolio of electricity afforded by the City’s participation in Peninsula Clean Energy, the Community Choice Aggregation program in San Mateo County. While approximately 70% of the emissions reductions necessary to meet the State target come from combined State-level and Community Choice Aggregation initiatives and programs, the remaining reductions come from the local measures captured in this Plan. Figure 7. Redwood City GHG Reduction Path to 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 The baseline emissions, forecasted emissions, targeted emissions, and emissions needed to reach the target are shown in Table 7, and the forecasting data is shown on the worksheet on the following page. Table 7: GHG Emissions Projection and Reduction Target 2005 Emissions (MTCO2e) 2030 State Target (MTCO2e) 2030 BAU Emissions (MTCO2e) Required Reductions for 2030 State Target (MTCO2e) Estimated CAP Reductions (MTCO2e) Estimated Emissions with 2030 CAP (MTCO2e) 640,161 326,482 677,044 350,562 365,856 311,118 ATTACHMENT 3 42 GHG Historical GHG Inventories and BAU Forecast Sector 2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 MTCO2e MTCO2e MTCO2e Annual growth rate: 2015-->2020 MTCO2e Annual growth rate: 2015-->2030 MTCO2e Residential 99,144 98,215 80,694 1.66% 87,596 1.18% 96,220 Commercial/ Industrial 189,166 202,922 172,465 1.53% 186,097 1.58% 218,290 Transportation* 329,495 300,405 324,952 0.43% 331,994 0.43% 346,540 Generated Waste & Wastewater 22,356 14,219 12,171 1.60% 13,178 1.36% 14,899 Water 0 1,569 894 1.60% 968 1.36% 1,095 TOTAL 640,161 617,330 591,176 0.95% 619,833 0.91% 677,044 * The above table is set up to use jurisdiction-specific VMT projections from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to determine the annual growth rate in the transportation sector. GHG BAU Forecast Growth Factor Inputs Sector Year Data: Current Data Source Residential (Population) 2010 76,815 Census 2020 90,518 RWC 2010 GP 2030 97,128 RWC 2010 GP Commercial/Ind ustrial (Jobs) 2010 58,080 ABAG Projection s 2020 67,624 RWC 2010 GP 2030 79,519 RWC 2010 GP Reaching 2020 & 2030 Targets 2020 2030 Business-as-Usual Emissions (MT CO2e): 619,833 677,044 Target: Percent Below 2005 Baseline Emissions: 15% 49% Target Emissions (MT CO2e): 544,137 326,482 Required Emissions Reduction to Achieve Target (MT CO2e): 75,696 350,562 Estimated Percent Below 2005 Baseline Emissions with CAP: 21.3% 51.4% Estimated Emissions with CAP (MT CO2e): 503,675 311,188 ATTACHMENT 3 43 Appendix D. RICAPS Menu of Measures This section describes the 47 greenhouse gas reduction measures selected and developed by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite (RICAPS) initiative for jurisdictions in the San Mateo County region. Code Sector Measure Name Detailed Description EC-1 Energy: Community Participate in community choice aggregation: Community Through Peninsula Clean Energy, the City will continue to provide greener renewable electricity to the community and promote residents and businesses “opting up” to PCE’s ECO100 (100% renewable) service. EC-2 Energy: Community Incentivize solar energy installation Provide financial incentives for solar PV system installation through participation in the Peninsula SunShares Program. EC-3 Energy: Community Establish commercial green building ordinance: Energy efficiency Update building code to mandate that commercial new construction and major remodels improve energy efficiency by achieving CALGreen Tier 1 energy performance. EC-4 Energy: Community Establish residential green building ordinance: Energy efficiency Update building code to mandate that residential new construction and major remodels improve energy efficiency by achieving CALGreen Tier 1 energy performance. EC-5 Energy: Community Promote commercial energy efficiency programs for existing buildings including SMC Energy Watch and PG&E’s commercial offerings Through marketing and outreach, City promotes participation in commercial energy efficiency programs and demand response programs offered by SMC Energy Watch and PG&E – including PGE’s appliance rebates, 0% energy efficiency financing and demand response programs. City provides or encourages commercial energy audits. EC-6 Energy: Community Promote residential energy efficiency programs for existing buildings including BayREN’s Home Upgrade and PG&E’s residential offerings Through marketing and outreach, City promotes participation in residential energy efficiency programs, including BayREN’s Home Upgrade program and PG&E’s efficient appliance rebates. City provides or promotes residential energy audits. City considers supplementing existing efficiency incentives and rebates. EC-7 Energy: Community Implement program for free or subsidized shade trees City program to reduce energy consumption associated with cooling homes through the provision of free or subsidized shade trees for buildings with eastern, western or southern exposures. EC-8 Energy: Community Establish commercial energy conservation program City initially starts a voluntary commercial energy conservation program, whereby the City would encourage minimum energy efficiency and water efficiency standards at the time of building sale. Transition to mandatory comprehensive energy assessments and benchmarking by registered energy assessors over time. EC-9 Energy: Community Establish residential energy conservation program City initially starts a voluntary residential energy conservation program, whereby the City would encourage minimum energy efficiency and water efficiency standards at the time of building sale. Transition to mandatory comprehensive energy assessments by registered energy assessors over time. ATTACHMENT 3 44 Code Sector Measure Name Detailed Description EC-10 Energy: Community Establish residential & commercial green building policy: All electric Update building code to promote the construction of all- electric new buildings. An Energy Design Rating (EDR) building code approach allows a municipality to require increased energy efficiency (e.g. 10% above code) for mixed fuel buildings, while enabling all-electric buildings to merely meet the minimum code requirements. EC-11 Energy: Community Incentivize electric panel upgrades in existing residential buildings to accommodate all-electric technologies Leverage incentives provided by PCE to assist residents in upgrading electric panels in order to accommodate all- electric technologies including solar PV, battery storage, air source heat pumps, heat pump water heaters, electric dryers, electric stoves and electric vehicles. EC-12 Energy: Community Promote opportunities for microgrid demonstration projects Work with stakeholders, such as local healthcare facilities or other critical facilities, to identify a potential site for a microgrid demonstration project. Provide education and outreach to these stakeholders on the multiple benefits of developing a microgrid including reliability, cleaner energy and cost savings. EC-13 Energy: Community Encourage pairing battery storage systems with all solar PV systems Provide education, outreach, and incentives to stakeholders, including businesses, residents and contractors, on the benefits of pairing battery storage with solar PV systems. EM-1 Energy: Municipal Participate in community choice aggregation: Municipality Through Peninsula Clean Energy, the City will continue to provide greener renewable electricity to municipal facilities. The City has also "opted up" to ECO100 service in all municipal facilities. EM-2 Energy: Municipal Install solar energy on municipal facilities Through feasibility studies, identify new or existing municipal facilities that are well suited to the installation of solar PV or solar hot water systems. Install systems where feasible. Use group purchasing power such as Bay Area SunShares or purchase power agreements (PPAs) to lower cost. EM-3 Energy: Municipal Establish municipal green building policy: Energy efficiency Establish policy requiring that municipal new construction and major remodels improve energy efficiency by achieving CALGreen Tier 1 energy performance or by being built to LEED, Zero Net Energy (ZNE) or Zero Net Carbon (ZNC) standards. EM-4 Energy: Municipal Improve energy efficiency of municipal buildings Audit city facilities for energy efficiency opportunities and implement EE retrofits. Participate in San Mateo County Energy Watch and leverage benchmarking to identify opportunities for EE upgrades and track energy performance. Leverage other programs that provide funding. EM-5 Energy: Municipal Establish a revolving fund to finance municipal energy efficiency and solar City establishes a program that utilizes an internal capital pool that is dedicated to funding municipal energy efficiency and solar energy projects that generate cost savings. A portion of those savings are then used to replenish the fund. EM-6 Energy: Municipal Install energy efficient streetlighting City replaces street lighting – including signal, park and parking lots – with efficient LED lighting. EM-7 Energy: Municipal Establish environmentally preferred purchasing policy: Energy efficiency Implement a sustainable purchasing policy that emphasizes the purchase of ENERGY STAR certified equipment – appliances, electronics, etc. ATTACHMENT 3 45 Code Sector Measure Name Detailed Description EM-8 Energy: Municipal Enroll in carbon offset program City purchases voluntary market carbon offsets to mitigate their GHG emissions. EM-9 Energy: Municipal Electrify existing municipal buildings and facilities Evaluate municipal buildings and facilities to determine projects where electrification is feasible. Retrofit these facilities to be all-electric, including electric heating, cooling and water heating. TL-1 Transportation & Land Use: Community Establish and implement smart growth development policy Establish a smart growth policy that prioritizes infill, higher density, transportation-oriented development and mixed-use development TL-2 Transportation & Land Use: Community Develop walkable and bikeable street landscape Modify landscape to make walking and biking more desirable. Install bike lanes, bike parking, traffic calming measures, beautification, etc. TL-3 Transportation & Land Use: Community Encourage and incentivize bike and car sharing companies to operate Develop policies and incentives that attract bike and car sharing companies to establish or expand service. TL-4 Transportation & Land Use: Community Establish parking policies that encourage public transit, biking, and walking Establish parking policies such as metered parking, reducing parking requirements for new development, and “unbundling” sales/leases of parking space form building space to increase use of public transit, biking, and walking. TL-5 Transportation & Land Use: Community Support Safe Routes to School Program Support the City's Safe Route to Schools program by investing in enhancing bike trails and safe pedestrian routes to local schools. Promote the program through collaboration with schools, hosting of events and outreach to increase volunteer participation. TL-6 Transportation & Land Use: Community Establish or expand local shuttle service Establish local shuttle service. If local shuttle service already exists, expand routes and/or frequency of service within city limits to connect areas not covered by public transit. City will look to grant funding from C/CAG and work with the County Transportation Authority (Alliance) to fund local shuttles. TL-7 Transportation & Land Use: Community Support local farmers’ markets Encourage community farmers’ markets with locally-grown food and community gardens to encourage local shopping and reduce VMT associated with acquiring produce. TL-8 Transportation & Land Use: Community Increase electric vehicle ownership Establish overarching community target for adoption rate of electric vehicles. This target should be based on a combination of the expected market growth of electric vehicles and actions taken by the city (including measures TL-9, TL-10, TL-11 and TL-12 to support electric vehicles through policy and programs). Explore mobile equipment ordinances and fuel switching. TL-9 Transportation & Land Use: Community Expand EV charging infrastructure through incentives and partnerships Leverage incentives from PCE to expand charging infrastructure in public properties, multi-unit dwellings and workplaces. TL-10 Transportation & Land Use: Community Establish commercial and residential green building policy: EV charging Update residential and commercial building code to increase the mandated percentage of parking spaces designed to accommodate electric vehicle charging equipment and also increase the mandated percentage of parking spaces devoted to clean air vehicles. TL-11 Transportation & Land Use: Community Enhance infrastructure to promote shared electric bikes and scooters Consider allowing dockless e-scooter and e-bikes to operate in the City. Modify existing city infrastructure to accommodate shared e-scooter and e-bikes. ATTACHMENT 3 46 Code Sector Measure Name Detailed Description TL-12 Transportation & Land Use: Community Develop policies that encourage adoption of EV TNCs Develop policies, such as a revenue neutral fee that only applies to internal combustion engine (ICE) TNCs, to encourage the use of EV TNCs in the community. Utilize funds generated by fees on ICE TNC rides to provide discounts on EV TNC rides. TM-1 Transportation: Municipal Establish electric municipal fleet policy Establish policy requiring the prioritization of electric vehicles (battery electric or plug-in hybrid electric) and mobile equipment. TM-2 Transportation: Municipal Establish flexible schedules policy for public employees Establish policy enabling alternative work schedules and remote working to reduce VMT associated with employee commuting. TM-3 Transportation: Municipal Implement commute alternatives program for public employees Establish commute alternatives program including pre-tax commuter benefits, transit subsidies, and a carpool program to promote and incentivize public transportation, carpooling, biking, etc. WC-1 Waste: Community Achieve higher waste diversion rate Achieve 90% waste diversion rate through a combination of efforts including promotion of traditional and new recycling and organics recycling programs and local enforcement of recycling requirements. WC-2 Waste: Community Establish Mandatory Residential Organics Recycling Ordinance Establish ordinance requiring all single-family homes and multi-family residences with under five units to sort and recycle organic material. Provide enforcement and issue fines to ensure compliance with ordinance. WC-3 Waste: Community Develop initiative to ensure enforcement of State’s Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling Ordinance AB 1826 requires all businesses and multi-family complexes with more than five units to sort and recycle organic material. Provide enforcement and issue fines to ensure compliance with ordinance. WC-4 Waste: Community Establish sustainable vendor policy for public events Establish policy requiring traditional and organics recycling at public events. Require compostable or recyclable cutlery and packaging to be used. WM-1 Waste: Municipal Establish a municipal zero waste policy Establish a policy to achieve 95% waste diversion rate in city operations. Provide appropriate bins and signage, organics recycling and education to public employees to make goal achievable. WM-2 Waste: Municipal Establish environmentally preferred purchasing policy: Recycled materials Implement a sustainable purchasing policy that emphasizes the purchase of materials with high recycled content – paper, furniture, etc. EW-1 Water: Community Promote existing residential water conservation rebates and services Promote BAWSCA residential water conservation rebate programs that offer rebates for items including high efficiency washing machines and toilets, rain barrels, sprinkler nozzles, irrigation controls and Lawn Be Gone. EW-2 Water: Community Develop initiative to ensure enforcement of Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Enforce a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or local ordinance that is at least as effective as the State’s model ordinance. Provide enforcement and issues fines to ensure compliance with ordinance. A-1 All Sectors: Community Participate in County Green Business program Promote San Mateo County Green Business program and set goals for participation. A-2 All Sectors: Community Establish green lease program Convert all leased property to "green" leases by either working with landlords or moving facilities to locations supported by systems such as solar, close to transportation, and/or with features to support and enhance energy efficiency and water conservation. ATTACHMENT 3 47 Appendix E. Future Opportunities for Emissions Reductions This section identifies and describes an additional eleven measures that can be explored and initiated by Redwood City as funding and resources become available and as the measures in the current Climate Action Plan are implemented or completed. Code Sector Measure Name Detailed Description EC-3 Energy: Community Establish commercial green building ordinance: Energy efficiency Update building code to mandate that commercial new construction and major remodels improve energy efficiency by achieving CALGreen Tier 1 energy performance. EC-4 Energy: Community Establish residential green building ordinance: Energy efficiency Update building code to mandate that residential new construction and major remodels improve energy efficiency by achieving CALGreen Tier 1 energy performance. EC-7 Energy: Community Implement program for free or subsidized shade trees City program to reduce energy consumption associated with cooling homes through the provision of free or subsidized shade trees for buildings with eastern, western or southern exposures. EM-3 Energy: Municipal Establish municipal green building policy: Energy efficiency Establish policy requiring that municipal new construction and major remodels improve energy efficiency by achieving CALGreen Tier 1 energy performance or by being built to LEED, Zero Net Energy (ZNE) or Zero Net Carbon (ZNC) standards. EM-5 Energy: Municipal Establish a revolving fund to finance municipal energy efficiency and solar City establishes a program that utilizes an internal capital pool that is dedicated to funding municipal energy efficiency and solar energy projects that generate cost savings. A portion of those savings are then used to replenish the fund. EM-8 Energy: Municipal Enroll in carbon offset program City purchases voluntary market carbon offsets to mitigate their GHG emissions. EM-9 Energy: Municipal Electrify existing municipal buildings and facilities Evaluate municipal buildings and facilities to determine projects where electrification is feasible. Retrofit these facilities to be all-electric, including electric heating, cooling and water heating. TL-12 Transportation & Land Use: Community Develop policies that encourage adoption of EV TNCs Develop policies, such as a revenue neutral fee that only applies to ICE TNCs, to encourage the use of EV TNCs in the community. Utilize funds generated by fees on ICE TNC rides to provide discounts on EV TNC rides. Provide designated drop-off locations and charging locations for EV TNCs to facilitate EV adoption. TM-2 Transportation: Municipal Establish flexible schedules policy for public employees Establish policy enabling alternative work schedules and remote working to reduce VMT associated with employee commuting. WM-2 Waste: Municipal Establish environmentally preferred purchasing policy: Recycled materials Implement a sustainable purchasing policy that emphasizes the purchase of materials with high recycled content – paper, furniture, etc. A-2 All Sectors: Community Establish green lease program Convert all leased property to "green" leases by either working with landlords or moving facilities to locations supported by systems such as solar, close to transportation, and/or with features to support and enhance energy efficiency and water conservation. ATTACHMENT 3 48 Appendix F. Summary of Funding Sources For implementation of the Climate Action Plan, Redwood City must evaluate strategies for financing climate protection actions and provide adequate, reliable, and consistent long-term program funding. This appendix provides an overview of available funding sources to help determine appropriate potential program funding sources and funding levels to support existing and new programs outlined in this Plan. Other funding sources may be available that are not listed here. Federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grant https://www.transportation.gov/highlights/tiger/tiger-discretionary-grant-program The Federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program was created by the American Investment and Recovery Act (ARRA) of 2009. In 2016, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced that nearly $500 million will be made available for transportation projects across the country in the eighth round of the highly successful TIGER grant program. Cities can apply for a TIGER grant to fund parking garages, and infrastructure to support electric battery-swap station and parking for electric vehicles. State Funding Energy Conservation Assistance Account Program (ECAA) http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/financing/index.html Since 1979, more than $399 million has been allocated to more than 850 recipients through ECAA Program Loans. The program offers loans with a one percent interest rate to finance energy efficiency improvements. The maximum loan amount is $3 million per application. Eligible projects include lighting system upgrades, pumps and motors, streetlights and LED traffic signals, energy management systems and equipment controls, building insulation, energy generating including renewable and combined heat and power projects, HVAC equipment, water and waste water treatment equipment and load shifting projects. Energy Upgrade California https://www.energyupgradeca.org/ The Energy Upgrade California program helps residential and commercial consumers and the building industry to access available rebate programs and financing options for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. It is supported by an alliance of the California Public Utilities Commissions, the California Energy Commissions, utilities, regional energy networks, local governments, businesses and nonprofits. Funding comes from investor-owned utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. ATTACHMENT 3 49 Utility Rebate Programs Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) offers a full suite of energy efficiency rebates programs to support its customers in saving energy and money. • Rebates for households: http://www.pge.com/myhome/saveenergymoney/ • Rebates for businesses: http://www.pge.com/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/ Below, we provide some specific examples of PG&E programs available to the community. PG&E San Mateo County Energy Watch Program https://smcenergywatch.org/ San Mateo County Energy Watch provides energy efficiency services and retrofits and assists businesses and moderately low-income households to identify cost-effective projects. The program’s services include energy audits, special rebates and incentives. PG&E Residential Appliance Rebates https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/save-energy-money/savings-solutions-and- rebates/rebates-by-product/rebates-by-product.page PG&E offers rebates to customers who purchase qualifying energy efficient appliances, including clothes washer, gas storage water heaters, electric heat pump water heaters and variable speed pool pumps/motors. PG&E LED Streetlight Replacement Program https://www.pge.com/en_US/large-business/save-energy-and-money/business-solutions-and- rebates/lighting.page The City of Redwood City may be eligible for PG&E’s LED streetlight replacement program which provides rebates to cities that replace existing streetlights with more energy efficient LED fixtures (up to $125 per fixture). PG&E Commercial Appliance Rebates https://www.pge.com/en_US/small-medium-business/save-energy-and-money/rebates-and- incentives/product-rebates.page PG&E offers rebates to business customers on hundreds of products including refrigeration units, lighting fixtures, heating systems, food service appliances, boilers and water heaters, and insulation. PG&E Home Energy Efficiency Improvements Rebates https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/save-energy-money/analyze-your-usage/home-energy- checkup/home-energy-checkup ATTACHMENT 3 50 PG&E offers rebates to customers who make energy efficiency improvements when remodeling their homes. Currently PG&E offers rebates on cool roof installations, attic and wall insulation installation, heating and cooling system upgrades, energy efficient furnace, and whole house fans. Finally, PG&E will provide up to $400 in rebates to customers who test and seal their home’s duct system. Local Energy Programs California Youth Energy Services http://www.risingsunenergy.org Since 2000, Rising Sun Energy Center has run CYES, a summer youth employment and community efficiency retrofit program in the Bay Area. CYES hires young people (ages 15-22) and trains them to become Energy Specialists, serving their communities with a FREE Green House Call. Energy Specialists install free energy and water saving devices, and provide personalized recommendations and education for further savings in homes. CYES provides services to all community members regardless of income. However, it was designed to serve hard-to-reach residents including renters, non-English speaking households, and low-moderate income households. It provides youth with opportunities for training and meaningful employment; which are often not adequately available to them. CYES youth receive employability skills training, paid summer employment, and the foundation for a green career. Green@Home HouseCalls https://www.acterra.org/greenhome Green@Home HouseCalls help fight climate change by saving residents energy, money and CO2. Trained volunteers meet with residents in their homes to install simple energy-saving devices and create home energy conservations plans. Volunteers demonstrate environmentally friendly choices and foster a deeper awareness of the need for change. HouseCalls are available to all residents of participating cities whether you rent or own. Other Funding Opportunities American Forests Global ReLeaf Grant Program http://www.americanforests.org/global_releaf/ American Forests is a non-profit organization founded in 1875 that promotes forest conservation. American Forest’s Global ReLeaf Program provides grants to fund tree-planting projects in urban and natural areas. California ReLeaf Urban Forestry Grant Program http://californiareleaf.org/programs/grants The California ReLeaf Urban Forestry grant program provides funding to assist nonprofit and community-based groups throughout California with urban forestry projects. The program is ATTACHMENT 3 51 funded through a contract with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Large Landscape Audit http://bawsca.org/conserve/programs/audits BAWSCA and its participating member agencies offer this audit program to select large landscapes within the service area free of charge. This program includes the development and monthly distribution of landscape water budgets for selected accounts and actual large landscape surveys to assess landscape watering needs. A key component of the program is ongoing monitoring/tracking of actual water use and estimated water savings for the sites surveyed. If you have water conservation related questions, please call 650-349-3000 or send an email to bawsca@bawsca.org. You can also check with your local water company; some offer water audits for no charge. Waste Audits by Recology https://www.recology.com/recology-san-mateo-county/specialty-services/ Recology offers a free waste audit to its business customers. A Waste Zero Specialist will come to your facility to advise you on the size/type of bins you could use and make other recommendations to help you reduce the amount of waste generated. To make an appointment, call (650) 595-3900. ATTACHMENT 3 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Legislative Program 2020 Adopted February 12, 2020 ATTACHMENT 4 2 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Advocacy of the District’s Interests ..................................................................................................... 4 District Legislative Priorities .................................................................................................................... 6 Goal 1: Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental protection vision with partners .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Goal 2: Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ....................................... 6 Goal 3: Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision............ 6 Goal 4: Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 District Legislative Policy Positions ........................................................................................................ 7 Goal 1: Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental protection vision with partners .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Goal 2: Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ........................................ 7 Goal 3: Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision............. 9 Goal 4: Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 2020 Regional/Local Priorities ................................................................................................................ 11 Plan Bay Area 2050 .............................................................................................................................. 11 San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Measure AA Implementation .................................... 11 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Measure B Implementation ................................. 11 San Mateo County Transit District Measure W Implementation .................................................. 11 Regional Collaboration ........................................................................................................................ 11 2020 Federal Legislative Priorities ......................................................................................................... 12 Land and Water Conservation Fund ................................................................................................. 12 Infrastructure Investment ................................................................................................................... 12 National Monument Preservation ..................................................................................................... 12 Wildlife Corridors ................................................................................................................................ 12 Appendix A: .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Strategic Plan for FY2020-21 ............................................... 13 Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners ..................................................................................................................................... 13 ATTACHMENT 4 3 Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ................................ 13 Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision ..... 13 Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission ........................................................................................................................................ 13 ATTACHMENT 4 4 Introduction Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Mission: To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity, protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. As part of the Coastside Protection Area Service Plan, a Coastside mission was adopted: 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 further these missions, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) annually reviews opportunities and challenges and establishes legislative program priorities and policy statements to guide its advocacy activities at the regional, state and federal levels. Advocacy of the District’s Interests While this document attempts to cover a wide variety of legislative issues that may impact the District, it is not comprehensive, complete or final. Throughout the state and federal legislative sessions, the District will review and take positions on various proposed policies and state or federal budget items. Per Section 2.0 of Board Policy 1.11, legislative advocacy is considered in the following manner: Section 2.0: Local, State, and Federal Legislative Advocacy a. The Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) receives periodic updates throughout the year regarding the District’s legislative program. When LFPAC determines that proposed legislation may affect District business, it may direct the General Manager to prepare a recommendation for consideration by the full Board or may direct the General Manager to take action to support or oppose the legislation without full Board approval when there is not adequate time to convene the full Board. In such cases, the General Manager or designee shall report to the Board any actions taken to support or oppose legislation at or before the next Board meeting. b. When time is so short that neither the full Board nor LFPAC can be convened to consider positions to support or oppose local, state or federal legislation, the General Manager is authorized to take a position on behalf of the District if the legislation: i. Is related to the District’s mission; AND ii. Would directly impact the District’s business, such as project delivery, operations, finances, legal authority, or other District responsibilities; AND iii. The position being taken is consistent/inconsistent with existing District policy, past action, or the District’s annual Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives; OR ATTACHMENT 4 5 iv. The legislation carries other considerations that make it contrary to the District’s interests. In such instances, the General Manager or designee shall report to the Board any actions taken to support or oppose the legislation at or before the next Board meeting. c. Full Board action is required regarding legislation that is not clearly within the criteria listed above under Section 2.b. or guided by direction previously given by LFPAC. All legislation on which the District takes a position will be closely tracked by the General Manager’s Office (GMO) and reported to the Board of Directors. Public Affairs staff will be responsible for reporting similar information to key departments. Contracted state advocacy teams will represent District interests based upon the policies contained in the Legislative Session Program. In addition to District position letters, Board members and District staff may be asked to testify before or meet with relevant legislators or members of the executive branch to discuss issues requiring heightened advocacy. If this is the case, District staff must first notify and/or confirm approval of the GMO to ensure that positions taken are consistent with the Board-approved Legislative Session Program. ATTACHMENT 4 6 District Legislative Priorities The following are the legislative priorities for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District during the 2020 State Legislative Session. Annual priority-setting considers a combination of issues that relate directly to important District-led projects or initiatives, opportunities to support or oppose state legislative initiatives sponsored by others that affect the District’s mission, and any issues that are identified by the Board as particularly significant. Funding measures are the most common of these priorities and are generally tied to the creation of new funding sources or the processes that prescribe the allocation of existing funding sources. The 2020 legislative priorities are listed and grouped below consistent with the Board’s annual Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives (See Appendix A) to provide a clear connection to agency priorities: Goal 1: Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental protection vision with partners 1. Wildlife Corridors: Greater funding opportunities and permit streamlining to preserve and enhance wildlife corridors; promote wildlife permeability in the built environment. 2. Anticoagulant Rodenticides: Eliminate the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides to protect raptors, large mammals and other nontarget native wildlife. Goal 2: Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands 1. Responsible Wildland Fire Vegetation Management: Effective guidelines for wildland fire fuel reduction efforts that minimize potential impacts to rare and endangered species and the risk of exacerbating the spread of invasive species. Goal 3: Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision 1. Equitable Access: Expanded access to and enhanced funding eligibility for new and improved greenspace opportunities for underserved communities. 2. Trail Corridors: Linking of preserve trails to regional trails and ultimately to the places where people live and work. Goal 4: Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission 1. Climate Change Bond: Climate change funding that benefits a wide range of open space priorities and promotes landscape climate resilience, particularly in the Bay Area. 2. Proposition 68 Implementation: Efforts to ensure that parks bond funds are allocated in a timely, equitable, and responsible manner, and that the resulting grant programs support District opens space and public access projects. 3. Cap and Trade/Climate-Related Funding: Funding that supports the climate resiliency ATTACHMENT 4 7 benefits of open space and working lands, including carbon sequestration. 4. Green Bonds: Efforts to allow the California Natural Resources Agency to work with the State Treasurer’s Office to develop standards for green bond projects, in which California can invest. 5. Public Safety Power Shutoffs: State efforts to ease the burden of PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoffs on local agency operations. District Legislative Policy Positions The ability of the District to deliver its mission and remain a sustainable organization can be impacted by legislation proposed on the local, state or federal level. To this end, proactive, Board-approved policy positions taken by the District on a variety of relevant issue areas help to ensure consistency in advocacy. District policy positions are then grouped by strategic plan goals. Goal 1: Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental protection vision with partners 1. Enhances the purchase or acquisition of regional and strategic open space lands and connects District lands to federal, state, county, city and other protected open space, parklands, bay lands, watershed lands, wildlife corridors and agricultural lands. 2. Protects public open space, property rights, interests and easements. 3. Enhances and funds regional collaboration and coordination of conservation efforts. 4. Promotes the use of urban infill and urban growth boundaries to avoid sprawl and prevent pressure on developing open spaces and further encroachment into the wildland-urban interface and open space buffer areas. 5. Expands and restores protected open space lands to enhance biodiversity, climate change resilience, and scenic, rural character. 6. Ensures that the zoning of permanently protected lands supports activities that further the District’s mission (preservation, natural resource protection, public access and education, agriculture). 7. Enhances the District’s ability to create and pursue opportunities to acquire an integrated greenbelt of protected open space, trails and habitat corridors. 8. Protects natural and working lands from future development threats. Goal 2: Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands 1. Ensures reasonable setback requirements that allow minimum defensible space clearances to be met by private property owners to prevent catastrophic fires that damage habitats and pose a high public safety hazard. ATTACHMENT 4 8 2. Furthers implementation of Senate Bill 32 (2016), the Global Warming Solutions Act that establishes a greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target for the state of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. 3. Recognizes and incentivizes the use of natural and working lands for the purpose of carbon sequestration. 4. Supports effective and comprehensive Districtwide, regional and statewide measures that respond to sea level rise and other effects of climate change and enhance ecological and community resilience. 5. Enhances or streamlines the integration of wildlife corridors into transportation infrastructure and promotes its ongoing maintenance within District lands and adjacent entities, which may extend to statewide and international linkages. 6. Promotes advance mitigation programs to enhance wildlife corridor networks. 7. Connects habitats that support a diverse array of native plants and animals. 8. Encourages public road management agencies to control invasive plant populations and incorporate safe pedestrian and wildlife crossings across roadways and highways. 9. Eliminates the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. 10. Supports increased knowledge, management and ultimately the eradication of Sudden Oak Death disease. 11. Provides permit exemptions for natural resources protection and restoration projects from regulations aimed to protect the natural environment from typical development projects. 12. Supports maintaining state and federal lists of endangered species justified through conclusive biological evidence. 13. Helps efforts to protect, conserve, restore and enhance the natural resources of the District, its coast, and adjacent waters for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations. 14. Enables Native American communities’ involvement in cultural and land management practices to restore and protect natural resources and enhance landscape resilience. 15. Protects and restores watersheds, water quality, natural water courses, wetlands and hydrologic processes consistent with the District’s Resource Management Plan. 16. Promotes expedited removal of select trees and brush by public agencies for fire protection, public safety and enhanced climate resilience, while minimizing potential impacts to rare and endangered species and the risk of exacerbating the spread of invasive species. 17. Supports wildland fire management to become a more natural component of the ecosystem and minimizes its negative effects on the community and environment. 18. Supports working farms and ranches on public open space land that further conservation and climate resilience goals. 19. Supports the creation of and repairs to farm labor housing to foster farm operation sustainability that ultimately furthers conservation and climate resilience goals. ATTACHMENT 4 9 20. Incentivizes agricultural operations to invest in energy-efficient and water-efficient irrigation technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water use. 21. Aids enforcement of marijuana laws related to the implementation of Prop 64 (2016) to protect natural lands from the destruction caused by illegal marijuana grows. 22. Protects natural lands from the destruction caused by illegal marijuana grows, prohibits marijuana grows on public lands, and restores damaged habitats. Goal 3: Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision 1. Helps expand educational opportunities for underserved and non-English speaking communities about natural resources and the benefits of open space. 2. Promotes volunteer involvement and engagement of diverse communities in ongoing conservation, restoration, enhancement and interpretation of the District’s natural resources. 3. Engages children and parents in the enjoyment and appreciation of outdoor open spaces to inspire the next generation of conservation champions. 4. Funds and enables programs that hire youth to work in parks and open space and encourages them to consider careers in conservation. 5. Keeps preserves safe, clean, accessible and inviting for healthy exercise and enjoyment. 6. Promotes awareness and access to programs and activities that increase outdoor physical activity. 7. Protects and helps fund the protection and public interpretation of cultural and historic resources located on natural open space and working lands. 8. Helps fund and streamline emergency repairs to District infrastructure, including trails and public access amenities. 9. Increases public access to preserved land regionwide. 10. Helps link preserve trails to other regional trails and ultimately to the places where people live and work. 11. Improves local transportation to enable better connectivity between communities and open space preserves. 12. Limits public use of drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) consistent with Board policies to preserve the tranquility of outdoor experiences, natural activities, and minimize risk of wildfire. Goal 4: Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission 1. Preserves existing tax revenues and tax authority. 2. Lowers the vote threshold for locally imposed special taxes from two-thirds to 55 percent. ATTACHMENT 4 10 3. Preserves tax-exempt status for municipal bonds on a state and federal level. 4. Expands state and federal incentives that promote the issuance of green bonds. 5. Preserves and promotes managerial discretion in effective and productive recruiting, hiring, firing and day-to-day oversight of staff at all levels. 6. Preserves and promotes open, transparent, accountable government administrative practices that promote the efficient and timely delivery of public services, facilitate public involvement, and support effective and timely decision-making. 7. Maintains prevailing wage exemptions for volunteers. 8. Enables statewide efforts to increase broadband connectivity to public agency infrastructure in remote areas. 9. Preserves and promotes cost-effective, fair, and efficient contracting practices that give taxpayers the best value for their dollar. 10. Enables streamlining of contracting and bidding processes and attracts greater contractor and vendor competition. 11. Provides funding and funding flexibility to achieve mission-related goals including, but not limited to: a. District operations and infrastructure b. Integrated Pest Management c. Programs that hire youth to work in parks and open space and encourages them to consider careers in conservation d. Partnership approaches to environmental education and public outreach efforts at local and state levels. e. Implementation of improvements that meet the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and other accessibility standards in District preserves. f. The protection of prime and sustainable agricultural lands, including investments in agricultural-support infrastructure. g. Funding for local partners to receive technical support for agriculture and natural resources enhancement. 12. Promotes closer collaboration and coordination between regulatory agencies to enhance permit processing efficiency and reduces overall project costs. 13. Improves and streamlines permitting, CEQA review and compliance processes for emergency repairs, routine maintenance, habitat restoration, and public access projects. 14. Provides open space districts the authority to utilize a variety of contracting methods to construct projects, including design-build methodologies. 15. Promotes implementation of and education about sustainable design and construction, including but not limited to LEED buildings, stormwater treatment and runoff reduction, local (within 150-mile radius of project) contractor/consultant hiring, construction material reuse/recycling, and use of green/energy efficient materials and equipment. ATTACHMENT 4 11 2020 Regional/Local Priorities Though there is a growing recognition of the importance of regional planning and coordination, local land use authority dominates California planning processes in both the built and natural environments. In 2020, the District supports: Plan Bay Area 2050 Ratification of the final preferred scenario of the Plan Bay Area 2050 that curbs urban boundary expansion, more tightly integrates open space preservation and stewardship, and funds District priorities in adopted Priority Conservation Areas (PCA). San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Measure AA Implementation Grant program guidelines for SFBRA's Measure AA funds that enable implementation of District priority projects. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Measure B Implementation Advance mitigation allocation guidelines for VTA's recently passed Measure B funds that enable implementation of District priority projects. San Mateo County Transit District Measure W Implementation Allocation guidelines that enable regional bicycle/pedestrian network connectivity with District projects and regional trail plans. Regional Collaboration Efforts to enhance and fund regional collaboration and coordination of conservation plans. ATTACHMENT 4 12 2020 Federal Legislative Priorities Given the outcomes of the 2016 federal elections, active advocacy at the federal level may be most effectively directed toward protecting existing environmental priorities and regulations. In 2020, the District will focus on the following: Land and Water Conservation Fund Fully funding the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. Infrastructure Investment Inclusion of active transportation and parks-related projects in federal funding allocations for infrastructure. National Monument Preservation Policies that protect and designate national monuments within our region that are important to fulfilling the District’s mission. Wildlife Corridors Policies that enhance habitat connectivity on nonfederal lands through wildlife crossings and other habitat connectivity projects. ATTACHMENT 4 13 Appendix A: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Strategic Plan for FY2020-21 Online at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/StrategicPlan_2021.pdf Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners • Objective 1 – Continue implementation of the District’s Vision Plan and communicate progress on projects through reporting results and building partner relationships • Objective 2 –Build and strengthen diverse partnerships to implement a collaborative and science-based approach to regional environmental protection • Objective 3 – Build and strengthen relationships with legislators to advocate environmental protection goals • Objective 4 – Preserve open space lands of local and regional significance Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands • Objective 1 – Take a regional leadership role in promoting the benefits of open space • Objective 2 – Protect and restore the natural environment in a manner that expands regional resiliency and climate change adaptation to preserve healthy natural systems • Objective 3 – Work with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen the prevention of, preparation for and response to wildland fires for enhanced ecosystem resiliency and public safety • Objective 4 – Support the viability of sustainable agriculture and character of rural communities Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision • Objective 1 – Communicate the benefits of a regional environmental protection vision • Objective 2 – Refine and implement a comprehensive public engagement strategy, including the outreach to diverse communities and enhanced public education programs • Objective 3 – Expand opportunities to connect people to their public open space preserves consistent with an environmental protection vision • Objective 4 – Reflect the diverse communities we serve in the District’s, staff, volunteers, and partners Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission • Objective 1 – Provide the necessary resources, tools, training, and infrastructure, including technology upgrades and capacity building ATTACHMENT 4 14 • Objective 2 – Continuously evaluate and improve processes and business model to effectively and efficiently deliver Vision Plan projects and the District’s ongoing functions • Objective 3 - Build state of readiness for potential disruptions by completing a risk assessment and creating a business continuity plan • Objective 4 – Continue to engage constituents for bond sales and via the work of the Bond Oversight Committee – “Promises made, promises kept.” • Objective 5 – Remain financially sustainable by pursuing and ensuring discretionary funding opportunities and partnerships to augment operating, capital, and bond funding sources, and ensure that large capital expenses and land acquisitions, including associated public access and land management costs, are evaluated within the long-term financial model and remain financially sustainable • Objective 6 – Continue to recruit, develop and retain talented staff to implement the District's mission and strengthen our organizational capacity ATTACHMENT 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLIMATE ACTION PLAN October 2018 ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 2 Acknowledgements MIDPEN PROJECT TEAM Hayley Edmonston, Climate Resiliency Fellow (Project Manager) Matt Baldzikowski, Senior Resource Management Specialist Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II Craig Beckman, Skyline Area Manager Anthony Correia, Supervising Ranger Elaina Cuzick, Senior Property Management Specialist Nathan Greig, Data Analyst I Josh Hugg, Governmental Affairs Specialist Tina Hugg, Senior Planner Dave Jaeckel, Management Analyst II Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager Omar Smith, Maintenance Supervisor Owen Sterzl, IT Administrator Thanks to the entire staff of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District who participated in working groups, contributed ideas and suggestions, and helped fit this plan into Midpen’s broader mission. CONSULTANT TEAM Olivia Ashmoore, Project Assistant Julia Chang-Frank, Director Andrea Martin, Senior Associate Kendra White, Senior Associate EXTERNAL PARTNERS AND RESOURCES Laura Castellini, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Dale Dualan, Point Reyes National Seashore Sandra Hamlat & Chantal Alatorre, East Bay Regional Park District Wendy Millet, TomKat Ranch Tom Robinson, Bay Area Open Space Council San Mateo County Office of Sustainability ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability Point Blue Conservation Science Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District San Mateo Resource Conservation District Bay Area Air Quality Management District Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Santa Clara County Parks Peninsula Open Space Trust The Nature Conservancy ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLIMATE ACTION PLAN October 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Baseline Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Greenhouse Gas Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 7 Business-as-Usual Emissions Forecast .......................................................................................................... 8 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals and Targets ................................................................................................. 9 Effectiveness and Cost Analysis of 10 Sample Actions ................................................................................... 11 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies and Actions ....................................................................................... 13 Vehicle Fleet, Equipment, and Business Travel .......................................................................................... 13 Employee Commute ................................................................................................................................... 16 Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 Tenant Residences ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Education and Outreach ............................................................................................................................. 21 Implementation and Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 23 Carbon Sequestration, Adaptation, and Resilience ........................................................................................ 25 Glossary........................................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix 1: Non-Administrative Emissions – Livestock & Visitor Transportation ......................................... 29 Livestock ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 Visitor Transportation ................................................................................................................................. 32 Appendix 2: Full Strategies and Actions List by Sector ................................................................................... 33 Appendix 3: Full Strategies and Actions List by Department .......................................................................... 37 Appendix 4: Full List of Performance Indicators ............................................................................................. 42 ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 4 Foreword With this Climate Action Plan, Midpen is taking action to minimize our own operational climate change impacts on our community and the surrounding natural environment. Climate change is putting at risk nearly 50 years of incredible conservation gains made by this organization and our partners. Changing temperatures are altering rainfall, vegetation, and ultimately the health of our local biodiversity. People are also witnessing and directly experiencing the wide-reaching impacts of climate change. Midpen remains committed to protecting a regional greenbelt of open space that increases our community’s ability to cope with climate change. Preserved forests and grasslands, and even the soil beneath them, continuously capture and store excess carbon in the atmosphere that originates from the burning of fossil fuels for transportation and energy. Open space lands buffer surrounding communities from catastrophic events such as sea level rise, flooding, and wildfire. Interconnected open space with wildlife corridors allows native plants and wildlife to move across the landscape, seeking livable habitats in response to changing conditions. Midpen is seizing the opportunity to lead by example and be part of the solution . From the energy we use, to which lands we preserve, to how we manage open space, this Climate Action Plan is our roadmap to meeting aggressive voluntary greenhouse gas reduction goals. We invite you to join us in taking a few additional steps to further reduce your own carbon footprint. Collectively, our actions make a real and lasting difference. Ana María Ruiz General Manager ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 5 Executive Summary Climate change is a direct threat to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (Midpen’s) mission to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity. Climate change is affecting temperatures, precipitation, weather patterns, species ranges, and wildfire risk, thereby affecting Midpen lands. Midpen believes that action on climate change must start from within and aims to lead by example by reducing its carbon footprint as an agency. The Climate Action Plan serves as a roadmap to meet Midpen’s ambitious commitment to: Reduce administrative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 20% below 2016 baseline by 2022, 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. This goal will be reached by implementing the following climate action strategies: VEHICLE FLEET, EQUIPMENT, AND BUSINESS TRAVEL - 45% OF BASELINE ADMINISTRATIVE GHG EMISSIONS Increase electric and alternative fuel vehicles and equipment, increase vehicle fuel economy, increase use of electric transportation options, reduce miles driven, and purchase carbon offsets for flights. EMPLOYEE COMMUTE – 30% OF BASELINE ADMINISTRATIVE GHG EMISSIONS Reduce the number of commute days, incentivize and enable low -emissions commute modes, and reduce commute distances. FACILITIES – 13% OF BASELINE ADMINISTRATIVE GHG EMISSIONS Move towards 100% renewable electricity for all Midpen facilities, maximize energy efficiency in new and existing buildings, and reduce solid waste generated through Midpen operations. TENANT RESIDENCES – 12% OF BASELINE ADMINISTRATIVE GHG EMISSIONS Move towards 100% renewable electricity for residences, increase energy efficiency, move towards cleaner heat sources, and improve data and guidance for decision-making. In addition, Midpen seeks strategies to reduce or offset livestock emissions, enhance carbon sequestration, reduce visitor transportation emissions, and increase staff and visitor awareness and action on climate change. The Climate Action Plan is designed to be a living document, serving as a starting point for a long-term commitment to address climate change. It is our hope that by taking steps to reduce GHG emissions internally, Midpen can draw attention to this critical issue, catalyze GHG reduction in our resident community and the broader environmental community, and contribute to local, state, and global progress on stabilizing the climate and protecting life in all its forms. 0 400 800 1200 1600 2016 Baseline 2022 Goal 2030 Goal 2050 Goal MT C O 2e Midpen GHG Reduction Goals ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 6 Introduction Climate change is a direct threat to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (Midpen’s) mission to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity. Now and in the future, climate change has wide-reaching consequences for the Bay Area’s natural environment and the people who depend on it. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) released from burning fossil fuels for transportation and energy are changing the climate. As a result, the Bay Area is already seeing warmer temperatures, changes to plant and animal habitat ranges, more intense wildfires, sea level rise, and more frequent droughts and floods. Midpen believes that action on climate change must start from within. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) presents a roadmap to reduce Midpen’s carbon footprint. Midpen aims to further regional and global progress on climate change mitigation, draw attention to this critical issue, and catalyze community-wide greenhouse gas reductions by leading by example and demonstrating what solutions look like in practice. The CAP summarizes Midpen’s carbon footprint and outlines strategies to reduce it. Midpen has adopted an ambitious voluntary goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2022, 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2050, in line with the State of California’s goals. In pursuit of that goal, the CAP lays out a suite of greenhouse gas reduction strategies, actions, and performance indicators as well as an implementation and monitoring plan. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS In 2017, Midpen initiated a climate action planning process to assess and develop strategies to reduce agency greenhouse gas emissions. Midpen hired a management fellow through the City/County Managers Association of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to lead this work. Partner organizations like the Bay Area Open Space Council have commended Midpen’s leadership in dedicating staff resources to climate change. Staff at all levels have been involved in the development of the Climate Action Plan in order to create a roadmap that is feasible and balances climate goals with the important work done by Midpen staff. An interdepartmental climate project team was convened in November 2017 to guide the scope and content of the Climate Action Plan. This team of 12 representatives from seven departments met monthly throughout the project. In addition, three working groups composed of a total of 16 staff took a deep dive into the largest emissions sectors over the course of 14 brainstorming and prioritization meetings. The full staff was engaged in the project through all-staff and department presentations. Finally, 101 employees (56% response rate) responded to a survey on Climate Action Plan strategies to share their ideas and feedback. A majority of employees supported every single GHG reduction strategy in the survey, with support ranging from 65-97% across strategies. The Board of Directors held three meetings to inform the development of the Climate Action Plan: March 28, 2018, to review Midpen’s greenhouse gas inventory and forecast June 27, 2018, to provide feedback on Midpen’s greenhouse gas reduction goals September 12, 2018, to provide feedback on the draft Climate Action Plan and draft Climate Change Policy ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 7 Baseline Summary Greenhouse Gas Inventory The baseline GHG Inventory is for the year 2016, the earliest year for which full data was available. Midpen is using an administrative scope that focuses on GHG emissions from Midpen administration and operations: Vehicle fleet, equipment, and business travel Employee commute Facilities (including electricity, heating fuels, solid waste, and wastewater) Tenant residences (including electricity and heating fuels) In 2016, Midpen produced 1,522 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). Vehicles, equipment, and business travel was the largest emissions sector at 45%. Employee commute was the second highest contributor at 30%. Facilities made up 13% of administrative emissions, followed by tenant residences at 12%. These administrative emissions sectors are the focus of Midpen’s GHG reduction goals, and details on each sector can be found in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies and Actions section. There are also non-administrative GHG emissions related to Midpen activities but that Midpen has less control over, such as livestock and visitor transportation to preserves. These non-administrative emissions sectors are discussed in Appendix 1. They represent areas for additional analysis to establish GHG emissions baselines and identify opportunities to reduce emissions above and beyond Midpen’s administrative GHG reduction goals. Initial strategies to establish emissions baselines and reduce or offset emissions from livestock and visitor transportation are described in Appendix 1. Vehicle Fleet, Equipment, Business Travel 45%Employee Commute 30% Facilities 13% Tenant Residences 12% 2016 Baseline Administrative GHG Emissions: 1,522 MTCO2e ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 8 Business-as-Usual Emissions Forecast The business-as-usual (BAU) emissions forecast projects greenhouse gas emissions through 2050 to provide a sense of how emissions will change over time if Midpen takes no action to reduce emissions. The forecast takes Midpen’s significant organizational growth into account, including expected growth in staff, vehicles, office facilities, and land acquisition. The BAU forecast also factors in state and regional laws and policies that will affect emissions in the future, such as fuel efficiency and renewable energy standards. Administrative GHG Emissions Forecast 2016-2050 The BAU forecast indicates that planned organizational growth will be largely offset by regional and state changes to electricity carbon intensity and vehicle fuel efficiency. The result is an overall 1% increase in administrative emissions between 2016 and 2050. Without these planned policy changes at the regional and state level, Midpen’s administrative emissions would grow 39% above the 2016 baseline by 2050, as shown in the figure above. The dip in emissions that can be seen in 2017-2018 is because Midpen facilities are being automatically enrolled in 50% renewable electricity from Silicon Valley Clean Energy and Peninsula Clean Energy. Based on this business-as-usual emissions forecast, Midpen will have to take action that goes beyond regional and state initiatives to meet its goal to reduce emissions 20% by 2022, 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 9 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals and Targets A specific, numerical goal for greenhouse gas reduction will help drive progress and measure the success of Midpen’s climate mitigation efforts. Midpen sets the following voluntary greenhouse gas reduction goals to be achieved by the Climate Action Plan: Reduce administrative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 20% below 2016 baseline by 2022, 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. Overall and sector-specific targets provide metrics for assessing progress towards climate action goals. Key indicators are also identified within each emissions sector to provide additional information on trends over time that may be enabling or inhibiting GHG reductions. Midpen staff will track progress towards reaching these targets by conducting a GHG Inventory update and providing reports to the Board every two years (see Implementation and Monitoring section). CLIMATE ACTION PLAN GOALS BASELINE (2016) TARGET (2022) TARGET (2030) TARGET (2050) Reduce vehicle fleet, equipment, and business travel emissions 20% by 2022, 40% by 2030, 80% by 2050 676 (MTCO2e) 541 (MTCO2e) 406 (MTCO2e) 135 (MTCO2e) Reduce employee commute emissions 20% by 2022, 40% by 2030, 80% by 2050 463 (MTCO2e) 371 (MTCO2e) 278 (MTCO2e) 93 (MTCO2e) Reduce facilities emissions 20% by 2022, 40% by 2030, 80% by 2050 197 (MTCO2e) 158 (MTCO2e) 118 (MTCO2e) 39 (MTCO2e) Reduce tenant residences emissions 20% by 2022, 40% by 2030, 80% by 2050 185 (MTCO2e) 148 (MTCO2e) 111 (MTCO2e) 37 (MTCO2e) STATE, NATIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT This target is aligned with the State of California and regional peers. California has set a statewide greenhouse gas reduction requirement of 80% below 1990 baseline levels by 2050. The California Legislature passed a mid-term 2030 reduction target to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 baseline levels by 2030.1 Midpen uses a 2016 baseline rather than a 1990 baseline because 2016 is the earliest year for which full data 1 “Climate Change Programs.” California Air Resources Board, 2018. 0 400 800 1200 1600 2016 Baseline 2022 Goal 2030 Goal 2050 Goal MT C O 2e Midpen GHG Reduction Goals ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 10 was available. Best practices recommend setting a baseline year in this manner rather than attempting to “back-cast” emissions in 1990 with very minimal data. Additionally, the 80% by 2050 reduction target is broadly accepted internationally by cities, states, and nations. This target is the foundation of the “Under2 MOU,” an agreement initiated in 2015 and now signed by California and over 200 jurisdictions from around the world to meet the intentions of the Paris Agreement. The “Under2 MOU” requires signatories to commit to “limit emissions to below 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels, or below 2 annual metric tons per capita, by 2050—the level of emission reduction believed necessary to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.”2 HOW WILL WE GET THERE? The Climate Action Plan serves as an achievable roadmap to reduce administrative emissions 20% below baseline by 2022 and 40% below baseline by 2030. Achieving an 80% reduction by 2050 is a vision as important as it is challenging. Advances in technology, changes to everyday operations, and incorporating climate change into decision-making will all be required to meet this more ambitious long-term target. Midpen has an opportunity and a duty as an environmental agency to lead by example and confront this critical challenge head on. 2 “The Under2 MOU.” Under2 Coalition, 2018. ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 11 Effectiveness and Cost Analysis of 10 Sample Actions GHG reductions and costs were modeled for ten sample Climate Action Plan actions that, if implemented, would reduce administrative GHG emissions by 40% (see table below). This analysis identifies one pathway to reducing administrative emissions by 40% below baseline, exceeding Midpen’s 2022 target and meeting Midpen’s 2030 target, but many other combinations of actions could achieve the same reduction. Therefore, the information presented in the table is not meant to be prescriptive but rather to illustrate that reaching the 40% reduction goal is possible. Costs and GHG reductions were not analyzed for the full list of actions in the Climate Action Plan. The table below shows that some actions would result in ongoing annual operating costs, such as purchasing 100% renewable electricity ($1,534 per year) or providing a transit/carpool/bike incentive ($21,002 to $43,619 per year depending on participation). Some actions would require upfront capital costs that are paid back over time through cost savings, such as purchasing electric bikes or all-terrain vehicles for ranger patrol ($60,000 upfront cost, paid back in two years through vehicle fuel savings). Downsizing trucks would result in both capital savings (due to lower purchase price at the time of replacement) and operating savings (due to fuel savings). Finally, some actions would have no associated cost, such as expanding telecommuting and compressed work schedules. The addition of a solar panel system for the new Administrative Office (AO) is expected to result in a net cost savings on energy use. At this time, it is too early to know whether other direct and indirect costs would apply to improve the energy efficiency of the building. Altogether, the ten sample actions analyzed would result in an estimated net annual operating savings of $81,707 due to savings in fuel and energy use. Net upfront capital costs will depend on energy efficiency improvements and costs associated with the AO building. ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 12 SECTOR ACTION GHG REDUCTION FROM BASELINE PAYBACK PERIOD (YEARS) NET ANNUAL OPERATING COST* NET UPFRONT CAPITAL COST* Vehicles, Equipment, Business Travel Switch to renewable diesel (Completed in September 2018) 6% N/A $0 $0 Downsize F350 trucks at time of replacement (25% of trucks and 100% of trucks scenarios)** 2.5-10% N/A ($13,952 - $55,807) ($34,729 - $138,915) Increase ranger patrol on electric bikes or all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) 4% 2 ($33,434) $60,000 Purchase carbon offsets for all business travel 6% No payback $374 $0 Employee Commute Transit/carpool/bike incentive (low and high scenarios) 3-6% No payback $21,002 - $43,619 $0 Expand telecommuting (low and high scenarios) 2-5% N/A $0 $0 Expand compressed work schedules (low and high scenarios) 1.5-3% N/A $0 $0 Allow Administrative Office (AO) staff to work at new South Area Office (low and high scenarios) 0.3-0.8% N/A $0 $0 Facilities Purchase 100% renewable electricity 5% No payback $1,534 $0 New AO: Zero Net Energy (solar panel system plus 60% energy use reduction through renovation) 2% TBD ($47,612) TBD TOTAL (RANGE) 32-48% ($49,471 - $113,943) ($79,915) - $25,271 + AO costs TOTAL (AVERAGE) 40% ($81,707) ($26,822) + AO costs *Negative values indicate net savings. **It may not be feasible to downsize all F350 trucks. Further analysis is required to assess whether smaller trucks could meet Midpen’s operational needs for fire response and off-road patrol and maintenance. This table shows that downsizing F350 trucks has high GHG and cost savings potential. Employee Commute Scenario Assumptions Transit/carpool/bike incentive: Low – 13% of employees shift to always alternative commute; High – 27% of employees shift to always alternative commute Expand telecommuting: Low – 50% of AO employees telecommute 1 day/week; High – 75% of AO employees telecommute 2 days/week Expand compressed work schedules: Low – 81% of employees on 9/80 schedule; High – all employees on 9/80 schedule plus 34% of employees shift to 4/10 schedule (changes modeled on top of current 34% of employees already on 9/80 schedule) Allow Administrative Office staff to work at new South Area Office: Low – 20% of AO employees 1 day/week; High – 25% of AO employees 2 days/week ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 13 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies and Actions The following sections detail Midpen’s GHG reduction strategies and actions by sector. Strategies are high-level approaches that specify how changes within that sector will reduce GHG emissions. Actions, nested within each strategy, provide a suite of specific implementation measures. In the following tables, strategies are shown as headers and actions are listed below each strategy. Prioritization and implementation are discussed in the Implementation and Monitoring section. Vehicle Fleet, Equipment, and Business Travel In total, vehicle fleet, equipment, and business travel account for the largest portion of Midpen’s administrative emissions, 45% in 2016. Midpen uses vehicles to carry out maintenance activities, patrol open space preserves, provide emergency response, and transport employees. Maintenance equipment is used to build and maintain trails, structures, and facilities. Employees also travel for work, including flights to conferences. Air travel is a highly carbon-intensive mode of travel, and alone accounts for 6% of Midpen’s administrative emissions. Climate action strategies can reduce fleet and equipment emissions by transitioning to electric and alternative fuel vehicles and equipment, increasing fuel efficiency, and optimizing operations to reduce driving distances. To reduce business travel emissions, Midpen can reassess the need to attend far-away conferences and purchase carbon offsets for flights. A key challenge in this sector is the operational demands of off-road vehicles. At present, there are few low-emissions options for trucks that can meet Midpen’s patrol, maintenance, and emergency response needs. Tracking evolving technologies and testing new truck options as they emerge will be a key priority for greening the vehicle fleet. Vehicles/Equipment GHG Emissions Breakdown STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TABLE KEY LEAD DEPARTMENT/DIVISION AS: Administrative Services E&C: Engineering and Construction HR: Human Resources IST: Information Systems and Technology L&F: Land and Facilities NR: Natural Resources PA: Public Affairs PL: Planning VS: Visitor Services TIMEFRAME Complete: Ongoing: Short-term: 1-3 years Medium-term: 3-6 years Long-term: 6-12 years OFFICE FACILITIES AO: Administrative Office CAO: Coastal Area Office FFO: Foothills Field Office SAO: South Area Office SFO: Skyline Field Office ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 14 Midpen has already taken steps to reduce vehicle fleet, equipment, and business travel emissions by: Changing diesel fuel tanks to renewable diesel in September 2018. Installing electric vehicle chargers at the administrative office and acquiring a plug-in hybrid. Incorporating fuel efficiency into vehicle replacement guidelines. Replacing three F350 trucks with more efficient F150 trucks at time of replacement. Acquiring and testing electric maintenance equipment such as chainsaws and brush cutters. Acquiring and testing two electric bicycles at Skyline Field Office for transportation to maintenance activities. First fueling with renewable diesel in September 2018. GOALS, TARGETS, AND KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS VEHICLE, EQUIPMENT, AND BUSINESS TRAVEL GOAL BASELINE (2016) TARGET (2022) TARGET (2030) TARGET (2050) Reduce vehicle fleet, equipment, and business travel emissions 20% by 2022, 40% by 2030, 80% by 2050 676 (MTCO2e) 541 (MTCO2e) 406 (MTCO2e) 135 (MTCO2e) Vehicle, Equipment, & Business Travel Indicators Average vehicle fuel economy (miles per gallon) 15.6 Total fleet vehicle miles traveled (miles, WEX cards only) 883,713 Proportion of equipment that is powered by renewable fuel or electricity (%) 0% Annual miles flown for business travel (miles) 50,000 ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 15 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS VEHICLE, EQUIPMENT, & BUSINESS TRAVEL STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Increase Electric and Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Equipment V1 Switch fuel tanks to renewable diesel. L&F V2 Track technology development for hybrid, electric, or alternative fuel trucks. When a viable option comes on the market, acquire and test one truck as a pilot project. L&F; VS V3 Install electric vehicle chargers at all field offices. L&F V4 Acquire and test new electric equipment as technology develops. Update Maintenance Operations Manual to provide guidance to choose electric maintenance equipment when tasks allows. L&F V5 As administrative vehicles are up for replacement, replace with electric or hybrid vehicles wherever possible. L&F V6 Purchase one hybrid or long-range electric vehicle for each field office for highway/town travel and on-road maintenance projects. L&F Increase Vehicle Fuel Economy V7 Evaluate fire response program and assess feasibility of alternative fire response models with lower emissions, such as acquiring brush trucks and downsizing F350s (e.g. City of Palo Alto). VS; L&F V8 Update Maintenance Operations Manual to provide guidance to choose most fuel efficient vehicle possible for task. L&F Increase Use of Alternative Electric Transportation Options V9 Acquire and test electric bikes, motorcycles, ATVs, or mules as technology develops. Stage electric transportation equipment at preserves to enable use. L&F; VS V10 Expand ranger patrols on electric bikes, motorcycles, ATVs, or mules. Update Ranger Operations Manual to encourage this option and provide guidance. VS V11 Update Maintenance Operations Manual to provide guidance to use electric transportation equipment to get to/from project site when tasks allows. L&F Reduce Vehicle Miles Driven V12 Evaluate patrol and maintenance circulation routes to identify mileage reduction opportunities. VS; L&F V13 Minimize driving to meetings and trainings through teleconferencing technology and efficient scheduling. IST Purchase Carbon Offsets for Flights V14 Purchase carbon offsets for flights. AS ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 16 Employee Commute Midpen employees commuted nearly 1.5 million miles in 2016, and this activity accounts for 30% of Midpen’s administrative emissions. Over 80% of employees always drive alone to work due to high local housing costs and limited public transit options, particularly for field staff. While employee commute choices are not under Midpen’s control, Midpen can influence employee habits to reduce emissions by promoting alternative commute options like carpooling, public transit, and biking. Midpen will strive to create an environment conducive to efficient commuting by offering flexible work schedules, expanding telecommuting when possible, and pursuing opportunities to provide employees with Midpen-owned housing. Reducing employees’ commute trips and providing employees with options for how they commute has significant co-benefits for employee morale and retention. Midpen has already taken steps to reduce employee commute emissions by: Offering “9/80” compressed work schedules for some employees. Offering telecommuting one day per week for some employees. Installing electric vehicle chargers at the Administrative Office. Offering Commuter Checks for employees to use pre-tax dollars for public transit (as required by Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 3 Providing Midpen-owned housing to some employees. GOALS, TARGETS, AND KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS EMPLOYEE COMMUTE GOAL BASELINE (2016) TARGET (2022) TARGET (2030) TARGET (2050) Reduce employee commute emissions 20% by 2022, 40% by 2030, 80% by 2050 463 (MTCO2e) 371 (MTCO2e) 278 (MTCO2e) 93 (MTCO2e) Employee Commute Indicators Total drive-alone employee vehicle miles traveled (miles) 1,350,784 Percent employees who always drive alone to work (%) 83% Percent employees who work a compressed 9/80 schedule (%) 32% Percent administrative employees who telecommute regularly (%) 9% 3 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District requires employers with more than 50 employees to either provide pre-tax Commuter Checks (Midpen’s current approach) or provide a transit incentive of at least $75 per month to participating employees. ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 17 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS EMPLOYEE COMMUTE STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Reduce the Number of Commute Days C1 Expand and encourage telecommuting. HR; IST C2 Expand and encourage compressed work schedules. HR; VS; L&F C3 Assess the feasibility of a weekly or biweekly administrative office closure (compressed schedules or telework on closure day). L&F; HR Incentivize and Enable Low-Emissions Commute Modes C4 Create an incentive for employees commuting via carpool, public transit, bike, or walking. HR C5 Install electric vehicle chargers at all field offices. L&F C6 Create intranet page with commute resources and carpool database. HR C7 Offer competitive pricing for employee electric vehicle charging. AS C8 Assess opportunities to partner with local employee shuttles (e.g., Chariot, San Mateo County, and tech companies). HR C9 Create a guaranteed ride home safeguard to reimburse an employee’s taxi or rideshare ride home in case of personal emergency or illness. HR Reduce Commute Distances C10 Pilot project to allow administrative employees to work out of the new South Area Office two days per week. L&F C11 Assess the feasibility of acquiring more Midpen-owned housing. PL Specific supporting actions to expand and encourage telecommuting (Action C1) and compressed work schedules (Action C2) may include one or more of the following: For administrative employees: Allow employees to do both a compressed schedule and telecommute. Add a four 10-hour days (4/10) compressed schedule option. Increase the number of days per week employees can telecommute to two. Expand the job classifications that are eligible for telecommuting or compressed schedules. For field employees: Expand 9/80 or 4/10 compressed schedules when feasible. Strengthen the telecommuting and compressed schedule programs by clarifying and reinforcing the framework, requirements, and expectations laid out in the existing policies through: Trainings for managers and employees. Formalizing workplace norms to minimize disruption such as ensuring all employees have their telecommute/off days in their Outlook and department calendars. Inform employees of the option to telecommute for half of time spent on transit (supports Action C4). ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 18 Facilities Midpen occupies administrative and field offices that produce greenhouse gas emissions through energy use and waste generation. Electricity and heating fuels are used to make buildings comfortable, and both Midpen operations and visitors generate solid waste and wastewater. In total, facilities account for 13% of administrative emissions. As shown in the chart at right, the top two contributors to facility emissions are electricity use and solid waste generation. To reduce electricity emissions, Midpen can reduce electricity use and increase the portion of electricity generated by renewable energy. The top two electricity users are the AO and AO2-4. As Midpen plans a new Administrative Office, incorporating energy efficiency and renewable energy could have a substantial impact on Midpen’s facility emissions. Taking steps to increase energy efficiency at other facilities, such as field offices and the Daniels Nature Center, can reduce the use of electricity and heating fuels like natural gas and propane. To reduce solid waste emissions, Midpen will work to divert recyclable materials and organic waste from the landfill. When organic material decomposes in a landfill, it releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas. An odd dynamic in this sector is that, from a greenhouse gas accounting standpoint, once Midpen begins purchasing 100% renewable electricity, there is little to no additional GHG reduction to be gained from increasing energy efficiency or installing solar panels. This accounting quirk masks the significant resource costs of energy generation (such as transmission loss and water use) and the benefits of generating renewable energy on site locally (such as independence and contributing additional clean energy to the grid). Therefore, increasing energy efficiency and assessing the viability of installing solar panels are key facility recommendations despite their marginal contribution to GHG reduction on paper. Midpen has already taken steps to reduce facility emissions by: Seeking an energy audit of AO, FFO, and SFO from Silicon Valley Energy Watch and Ecology Action. Reusing and recycling solid waste from routine maintenance activities. Creating a waste diversion policy and meeting waste diversion targets for capital projects. Facilities GHG Emissions Breakdown ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 19 GOALS, TARGETS, AND KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FACILITIES GOAL BASELINE (2016) TARGET (2022) TARGET (2030) TARGET (2050) Reduce facilities emissions 20% by 2022, 40% by 2030, 80% by 2050 197 (MTCO2e) 158 (MTCO2e) 118 (MTCO2e) 39 (MTCO2e) Facilities Indicators Administrative office electricity use per square foot (annual kWh/SQFT) 11.34 Field office average electricity use per square foot (annual kWh/SQFT) 5.37 Percent of electricity from renewable sources (%) 33% Solid waste diversion rate (% diverted) 34% STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS FACILITIES STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Move Towards 100% Renewable Electricity for All Midpen Facilities F1 Purchase 100% renewable electricity for Midpen facilities. L&F F2 Assess the feasibility of rooftop/carport solar at the Foothills Field Office, Skyline Field Office, and preserve parking lots and implement where possible. E&C Maximize Energy Efficiency in New and Existing Buildings F3 Implement energy efficiency upgrades at the Skyline and Foothills Field Offices, including measures identified in the Ecology Action Energy Audit. L&F; E&C F4 Seek the highest level of energy efficiency and sustainability possible while planning for the new Administrative Office, including LEED standard and/or utilizing electric heating to achieve zero net energy. E&C F5 Assess the feasibility of a weekly or biweekly administrative office closure (compressed schedules or telework on closure day). L&F; HR Reduce Solid Waste Generated Through Midpen Operations F6 Implement office waste reduction measures: restart compost program, improve recycling, and minimize single-use disposables at events. L&F F7 Study characterization of waste generated from maintenance activities; identify any additional opportunities to reuse or divert maintenance materials. L&F F8 Update waste diversion policy and create contract language to incentivize contractors to use sustainable practices, such as reducing solid waste and fuel use, and provide documentation to Midpen. E&C; AS ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 20 Tenant Residences Midpen owns 40 homes that are leased to employees, agricultural tenants, and members of the public. Emissions from tenant residences come from electricity use and heating. Heating fuels used in residences include natural gas, wood, and propane. While residences contribute a small portion to the total inventory— 12% in 2016—there are opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and particulate matter. Switching residences from wood-fired heating to gas or preferably electric heating would have a positive impact on local air quality because burning wood releases harmful particulate matter into the air. Midpen can also reduce emissions by encouraging residents to purchase renewable electricity and increasing energy efficiency. GOALS, TARGETS, AND KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TENANT RESIDENCES GOAL BASELINE (2016) TARGET (2022) TARGET (2030) TARGET (2050) Reduce tenant residences emissions 20% by 2022, 40% by 2030, 80% by 2050 185 (MTCO2e) 148 (MTCO2e) 111 (MTCO2e) 37 (MTCO2e) Tenant Residences Indicators Percent of tenant residences using electric heat (%) 32% Percent of tenants purchasing highest renewable option from utility (%) 0% STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TENANT RESIDENCES STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Move Towards 100% Renewable Electricity for Residences R1 Encourage residents to purchase 100% renewable electricity . Assess viability of requiring as leases are renewed. L&F R2 Assess the feasibility of rooftop solar on residences, including leasing or power purchasing agreements. L&F; E&C Increase Energy Efficiency R3 Make basic energy efficiency upgrades such as installing weather stripping, LED lighting, and double-paned windows. L&F R4 Assess the viability of more significant energy efficiency improvements such as heat pumps and insulation. L&F Mover Towards Cleaner Heat Sources R5 Reduce woodstove use by installing or upgrading gas or preferably electric heating in homes with woodstoves. L&F Improve Data and Guidance for Decision-Making R6 Ask tenants to share PG&E bills and other heat expenses with Midpen to improve data and GHG monitoring. L&F R7 Create guidelines to incorporate sustainability into decisions about residence improvements. L&F ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 21 Education and Outreach By taking steps to reduce GHG emissions internally, Midpen will serve as a model and inspire the broader community, visitors, and partner organizations to take action on climate change. Therefore, communicating the importance of climate change and what actionable steps individuals and organizations can take to reduce their impact is a key priority. Increasing awareness and action on climate change both internally and in the broader community will help Midpen be a leader on climate change. Internal education will help build momentum to implement the Climate Action Plan and enable staff and docents to communicate climate change effectively with the public. Educating visitors on climate change can influence their behavior within Midpen preserves and in their homes. Midpen has a unique opportunity as an environmental agency to reach thousands of visitors with credible messages about climate change. Midpen has already taken steps to engage staff and visitors about climate change by: Creating a climate change page for the Midpen website. Providing the first ever climate change training session for docents. Partnering with Save the Redwoods League to develop a “Redwood Ecology and Climate Change” environmental education field learning program for high school students. Developing a draft climate change communications plan. Participating in climate change forums and initiatives such as California Climate Action Planning Conference, California Adaptation Forum, Global Climate Action Summit, Golden Gate National Parks Sustainability Summit, Adapting to Rising Tides, and SeaChange San Mateo County. GOALS, TARGETS, AND KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS EDUCATION AND OUTREACH GOAL BASELINE (2016) TARGET (2022) TARGET (2030) TARGET (2050) Increase staff and visitor awareness and action on climate change N/A N/A N/A N/A Education and Outreach Indicators Number of staff engaged through the Green Team or internal newsletter Establish baseline Number of docents and other volunteers trained to discuss climate change Establish baseline Number of press releases/newsletters/social media posts on climate change Establish baseline ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 22 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS EDUCATION AND OUTREACH STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Improve Internal Capacity to Address Climate Change E1 Establish a Midpen Green Team to implement the Climate Action Plan and continue improving sustainability efforts. NR E2 Improve internal communication about climate change through an intranet page and newsletter on Midpen action, regional news, and resources for staff to improve their sustainability at home. NR Educate Visitors and the Community About Climate Change E3 Provide training on climate change content and communication techniques to volunteers, rangers, and public affairs staff. NR; VS E4 Incorporate climate change into docent-led interpretative activities and Public Affairs outreach events and materials. Encourage visitors to reduce their GHG emissions with messaging on tangible actions. VS; PA E5 Use Climate Action Plan actions as demonstration projects to highlight via press releases, social media posts, informal visitor interactions, and signage (when project is in a public area). PA; VS Participate and Play a Leadership Role in Regional and State Efforts E6 Support and influence regional and state climate change-related policies and funding allocations. PA; AS E7 Support and participate in regional climate change initiatives, conferences, and general community of practice. NR; PA E8 Foster partnerships to respond to climate change collaboratively and seek opportunities to share information with other agencies. NR; PA E9 Seek grant opportunities to fund implementation of Climate Action Plan, carbon sequestration, and natural resource resilience efforts. AS ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 23 Implementation and Monitoring The Climate Action Plan identifies a suite of actions that Midpen can implement to reach its goal of reducing emissions 20% by 2022 and 40% by 2030. The Climate Action Plan will be implemented through the annual Capital Improvement and Action Plan (CIAP) and Budget process. Each year, implementation actions will be selected based on Board-approved prioritization criteria. Annual prioritization and selection will allow Midpen to adapt to changes and advances in technologies, climate change response options, and funding opportunities. The selected actions and any associated funding will be subject to review by the General Manager’s Office and approval by the Board. Departments will incorporate implementation actions for each fiscal year into their budget requests and resource loading for staff time. Prioritization criteria for annual selection of CAP implementation actions are as follows: Greenhouse gas reduction effectiveness Cost Cost-effectiveness Availability of external funds, such as grants or rebates Operational impacts (for example, vehicle/equipment replacements need to be balanced with operational demands of off-road patrol and maintenance) Staff capacity Ease of implementation Ability to leverage other ongoing programs or projects for economy of scale Co-benefits to the public, staff, and environment Consistency with Measure AA, Vision Plan, Strategic Plan, and other Midpen goals and priorities Public feedback and requests To track progress on implementing the Climate Action Plan and reducing administrative GHG emissions in line with Midpen’s climate goals, staff will conduct a regular GHG Inventory approximately every two years and report findings to the Board. In addition to the key metric of GHG reduction, tracking and reporting should also include relevant indicators identified in the Climate Action Plan to illuminate underlying trends contributing to progress or challenges. These climate change response efforts will evolve over time as operations and solutions change, so monitoring approaches should be flexible and focused on collecting meaningful information that will help Midpen reach its climate change goals. The Climate Action Plan should be updated between 2025 and 2030 to assess progress and identify new strategies in pursuit of Midpen’s goal of reducing emissions 80% below baseline by 2050. Managing and tracking the implementation of the Climate Action Plan is estimated to take approximately 0.5 of a full time equivalent (FTE) staff position. ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 24 Finally, the baseline GHG Inventory identified a number of areas where data was lacking or unavailable. Future GHG Inventory updates should strive to improve data quality to give more confidence to estimates of GHG emissions and GHG reduction strategies. Recommendations to improve data quality are as follows: VEHICLE FLEET, EQUIPMENT, AND BUSINESS TRAVEL Institute tracking of annual fuel use and mileage by vehicle Create system for tracking business travel – capture all flights in one GL or through manual reporting, improve consistency of which GL is used for mileage reimbursement, scan all travel credit card receipts so flights/rental cars/gas can be parsed out EMPLOYEE COMMUTE Conduct regular employee commute survey with each GHG Inventory update that collects data on commute miles, office location, transportation mode by # days per week, telework/compressed schedule Institute tracking for number of employees participating in telework a nd compressed schedule options FACILITIES Waste characterization study of field office solid waste from maintenance activities TENANT RESIDENCES Request PG&E bills or data from tenants Request information on participation in community choice energy options from tenants Request other data on heating costs (e.g. quantity of firewood) from tenants OTHER DATA GAPS Continue to seek livestock emissions factor data specific to California rangelands Assess carbon sequestration in grazed and ungrazed rangelands to determine grazing effect on soil carbon Determine visitor transportation emissions baseline using data on number of visitors (from car counters) and visitor origin (from preserve use survey) Collect data on contractor solid waste (could come from Waste Management Plan required by county) If possible, collect data on contractor fuel use Collect data on volunteer transportation to work sites Incorporate full materials lifecycle analysis as methodology becomes more accessible ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 25 Carbon Sequestration, Adaptation, and Resilience Even if global greenhouse gas emissions stopped today, some amount of climate change is inevitable, and climate change impacts can already be observed on Bay Area natural resources and communities. Understanding and preparing for these impacts is referred to as climate adaptation. Midpen’s goal in managing lands in a changing climate is to promote the resilience of natural resources to climate change impacts. Climate change impacts have already been observed locally in the Golden Gate National Parks:4 Increase in average annual temperatures of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) between 1960 and 2010 Northern shifts in winter bird ranges of 0.5 km (0.3 mi) per year between 1975 and 2004 Upward shifts in elevation for 12% of endemic species and 27% of non-native species between the periods of 1895- 1970 and 1971-2009 Sea level rise of 22 cm (9 in) from 1854 to 2016 Decrease in coastal fog by 33% between the periods of 1901-1925 and 1951-2008 Increase in heavy storms by 25% between the periods of 1901-1960 and 1991-2000 Human-caused climate change accounted for 10-20% of the 2012-2014 drought Climate was the dominant factor controlling the extent of wildfire burn areas between 1916 and 2003, even during periods of active fire suppression While adapting to climate change impacts and increasing the resilience of natural resources is outside the scope of the Climate Action Plan, this work falls under the broader umbrella of Midpen’s Climate Change Program. CARBON SEQUESTRATION Progress to-date focused on a preliminary assessment of baseline carbon sequestration and storage in Midpen lands. Carbon sequestration is a related but distinct concept to climate mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (preparing for impacts). Carbon sequestration removes carbon from the atmosphere and stores it in plant biomass and soils, functionally helping to reduce emissions. It is important to note that current levels of carbon sequestration in Midpen lands are considered a baseline, and to qualify for carbon offsets Midpen would need to undertake projects or acquisitions resulting in additional carbon 4 Patrick Gonzalez, Ph.D. “Climate Change in the National Parks of the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA.” National Park Service and University of California, Berkeley, 2016. KEY TERMS Climate mitigation: Actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change Climate adaptation: Actions that increase the ability to withstand, respond to, or cope with climate change impacts Climate resilience: The capacity of ecosystems to withstand and bounce back from climate stress and hazardous events Carbon sequestration: Process by which carbon dioxide is moved from the atmosphere into other stores, such as plants and soils Carbon store: Semi-permanent biological reservoir of carbon, such as plants and soils ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 26 sequestration. Creating carbon offsets to sell would require a more rigorous baseline assessment and verification of additional carbon sequestration. The assessment described below is intended to provide a general order of magnitude of Midpen’s carbon sequestration to inform the direction of future work. In 2018, GIS staff used plant biomass data from the LANDFIRE data set, provided by the California Air Resources Board, and soil carbon data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service to conduct a preliminary assessment of baseline carbon storage and sequestration in Midpen lands. This assessment was a conservative estimate because complete data was not available. The assessment found that Midpen lands store, or hold in a semi- permanent biological reservoir, about 372 MTCO2e per acre in plant biomass and soils, for a total of 23 million MTCO2e across all preserves. This semi-permanent store of carbon is best thought of as potential emissions that could be released through wildfire or development. The assessment also found that Midpen lands sequester, or take in through photosynthesis, about 1 MTCO2e per acre per year for a total of 61,000 MTCO2e per year across all preserves. This ongoing movement of carbon from the atmosphere to plant biomass is best thought of as emissions being removed from the atmosphere. Sequestration data was not available for many vegetation types, leading to a known underestimate. While Midpen lands take in far more carbon than is emitted by Midpen operations each year, open space preserves act as a breathing lung for the entire region. The residents within Midpen’s jurisdictional boundary produce about 8 million MTCO 2e every year,5 which means that Midpen lands take in less than 1% of Midpen residents’ GHG emissions. Combining Midpen lands with all other open space lands within Midpen’s jurisdictional boundary, regional carbon sequestration only takes in 3% of regional emissions. This finding underscores the need to significantly reduce GHG emissions as an agency and contribute to community and regional efforts to mitigate climate change. 5 “Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory.” California Air Resources Board, 2018. ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 27 This finding is consistent with a recent study by The Nature Conservancy that found that maximizing land conservation and stewardship across the globe could “provide 37% of cost-effective CO2 mitigation needed through 2030” to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.6 Both land-based carbon sequestration and storage and ambitious efforts to significantly reduce GHG emissions are needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. Carbon sequestration is an important ecosystem service Midpen can incorporate as it balances managing land for multiple benefits. Actions that increase carbon sequestration, such as restoring forests or riparian areas, may also help prepare for climate impacts and increase resilience. Midpen can also take steps to prevent the release of landscape carbon from catastrophic wildfire, such as fuel reduction and prescribed burns. Refining Midpen’s data on landscape carbon, using that information in planning and decision-making, and implementing projects to increase carbon sequestration are key climate action priorities. ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCE Going forward, adaptation and resilience efforts will focus on assessing the vulnerability of natural resources to climate change, identifying land management strategies to increase resilience, continuing biological monitoring, and implementing restoration projects. This work is closely tied to much of what the Natural Resources Department manages, including prescribed and wildland fire, forest restoration, special status species, integrated pest management, and ongoing monitoring and restoration. 6 “Natural Climate Solutions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 2017. ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 28 Glossary DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS AS: Administrative Services E&C: Engineering and Construction HR: Human Resources IST: Information Systems and Technology L&F: Land and Facilities NR: Natural Resources PA: Public Affairs PL: Planning VS: Visitor Services OFFICE FACILITIES AO: Administrative Office CAO: Coastal Area Office FFO: Foothills Field Office SAO: South Area Office SFO: Skyline Field Office CLIMATE CHANGE TERMINOLOGY Administrative emissions/administrative scope: Midpen emissions from administration and operations (vehicles, equipment, business travel, employee commute, facilities, and tenant residences) for which Midpen is setting a quantitative GHG reduction goal Carbon sequestration: Process by which carbon dioxide is moved from the atmosphere into other stores, such as plants and soils Carbon store: Semi-permanent biological reservoir of carbon, such as plants and soils Climate adaptation: Actions that increase the ability to withstand, respond to, or cope with climate change impacts Climate mitigation: Actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change Climate resilience: The capacity of ecosystems to withstand and bounce back from climate stress and hazardous events Greenhouse gas (GHG): Climate change-causing gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, named for the warming “greenhouse effect” they have on the atmosphere by absorbing infrared radiation Metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e): Standard unit of measurement for greenhouse gases ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 29 Appendix 1: Non-Administrative Emissions – Livestock & Visitor Transportation In addition to the administrative GHG emissions discussed in the Climate Action Plan, there are also non- administrative GHG emissions related to Midpen activities but that Midpen has less control over, such as livestock and visitor transportation to preserves. Livestock emissions are not included in the administrative scope because livestock serve a very different function than vehicles and facilities, provide community benefits, and exist within a complex biological system. Likewise, visitor transportation emissions are not included in the administrative scope because Midpen has limited control over visitor transportation. These sectors represent opportunities for additional analysis to identify strategies to reduce emissions above and beyond Midpen’s administrative GHG reduction goals. Initial strategies to reduce or offset emissions are described in the following sections. An emissions baseline of 876 MTCO2e in 2016 was determined for livestock. However, emissions are highly variable across cattle depending on region, diet, age, weight, and other factors. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the uncertainty for cattle emissions factors is between ± 20% and ± 50%.7 Therefore, refining data on livestock emissions and associated carbon sequestration in grazed areas is a recommendation in the Climate Action Plan. A visitor transportation emissions baseline has not been established, but the necessary data is available and establishing a baseline is a recommendation in the Climate Action Plan. NON-ADMINISTRATIVE EMISSIONS GOALS BASELINE (2016) TARGET (2022) TARGET (2030) TARGET (2050) Reduce or offset livestock emissions and enhance soil carbon sequestration 876 (MTCO2e) N/A N/A N/A Reduce visitor transportation emissions Establish baseline N/A N/A N/A Livestock Midpen uses conservation grazing to manage fuel (flammable vegetation) for fire protection, enhance the diversity of native plants and animals, help sustain the local agricultural economy, and foster the region's rural heritage. As part of the Coastside Protection Area Service Plan, Midpen has committed to conserving open space and agricultural land, preserving agricultural operations on the coast, and encouraging viable agricultural use of Midpen-owned lands. Currently, Midpen has tenants grazing about 400 cattle on 10,800 acres. One grazing tenant also keeps other livestock, such as horses, sheep, pigs, and chickens; however, the majority of grazing livestock are cattle. 7 “IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2006. ADMINISTRATIVE GHG EMISSIONS 2016 BASELINE (MTCO2E) Vehicle Fleet, Equipment, Business Travel 676 Employee Commute 463 Facilities 197 Tenant Residences 185 NON-ADMINISTRATIVE GHG EMISSIONS 2016 BASELINE (MTCO2E) Livestock 876 Visitor Transportation TBD ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 30 Ruminant animals like cattle produce and release methane when they digest grass. Methane is a strong greenhouse gas that has almost thirty times the impact of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere. While there are few opportunities to change the quantities of methane that rangeland cattle release, Midpen will ensure the grazing program is meeting land management objectives and work to maximize the carbon sequestration potential of rangeland. Point Blue Conservation Science suggests that “methane production be acknowledged as an intrinsic trade-off to beef production that may be justified by the role cattle play as a means to manage and protect rangelands.”8 Livestock emissions are excluded from the administrative scope for the GHG Inventory and GHG reduction goals because livestock serve a very different function than vehicles and facilities, provide community benefits, and exist within a complex biological system. The effect of cattle grazing on soil carbon varies widely depending on the grazing regime. While conventional commercial grazing can result in a net loss of soil carbon, prescribed grazing can increase soil carbon, perhaps even enough to offset some portion of the cattle’s methane emissions from digestion.9 There are also a number of land management strategies to increase carbon sequestration in grazed areas, such as applying compost amendments and restoring stream habitat.10 Key next steps for addressing livestock emissions include gaining a better understanding of current carbon sequestration and the impact of the current grazing regime, and assessing the viability of land management practices to increase carbon sequestration. 8 “Methane Emissions from Livestock.” Point Blue Conservation Science Issue Brief, 2018. 9 “Methane Emissions from Livestock.” Point Blue Conservation Science Issue Brief, 2018. 10 “Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Evaluation for NRCS Conservation Practice Planning.” Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2018. Livestock GHG Emissions Breakdown ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 31 Midpen has already taken steps to reduce livestock emissions by: Conducting ongoing monitoring of vegetation and environmental quality in grazed areas to ensure grazing practices are in compliance with prescribed grazing plans. Meeting with partners at TomKat Ranch and San Mateo Resource Conservation District for initial talks on developing a carbon farm plan and projects to increase soil carbon sequestration. GOALS, TARGETS, AND KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS LIVESTOCK GOAL BASELINE (2016) TARGET (2022) TARGET (2030) TARGET (2050) Reduce livestock emissions and enhance soil carbon sequestration 876 (MTCO2e) N/A N/A N/A Livestock Indicators Number of animals with high enteric emissions (year-round equivalent cattle, excluding calves on milk) 374 Number of animals with low enteric emissions (year -round equivalent horses, sheep, pigs, goats, alpacas, donkeys) 177 Annual additional landscape carbon sequestration due to grazing (MTCO2e) Establish baseline Percent of annual livestock emissions offset by carbon sequestration projects (%) 0% STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LIVESTOCK STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Maximize Soil Carbon Sequestration and Storage L1 Assess current carbon sequestration in grazed and ungrazed rangelands to determine effect of grazing on soil carbon. NR L2 Partner with San Mateo Resource Conservation District to develop carbon farm plan. NR; L&F L3 Implement carbon sequestration projects identified in carbon farm plan. NR; L&F Ensure Grazing Program is Attaining Land Management Objectives L4 Continue monitoring grazing impact on invasive species and fuel reduction objectives. NR L5 Where agricultural sustainability is not a leading factor, assess alternative grassland management techniques such as mowing, prescribed burns, and use of other livestock such as goats. NR ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 32 Visitor Transportation Emissions associated with visitor transportation were not included in the baseline greenhouse gas inventory, so strategies in this sector include establishing an emissions baseline. Visitor travel is likely a large source of emissions over which Midpen has minimal influence. However, Midpen can support the use of alternative transportation through infrastructure and education. Midpen can also address inequity in communities’ access to open space by increasing transportation options for people who do not own cars. Increasing access to Midpen preserves via biking, walking, and transit will benefit Midpen’s climate efforts as well as community health. Midpen has already taken steps to reduce visitor transportation emissions by: Initiating Rancho San Antonio Carrying Capacity and Multimodal Access Study to engage stakeholders and partner agencies in exploring non-motorized mobility, transit options, and parking alternatives. Installing visitor use counters at 13 locations in 2017 to collect data on preserve visitation. Conducting preserve use survey in 2017 that included questions on transportation. Providing bike racks at preserve parking lots. GOALS, TARGETS, AND KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS VISITOR TRANSPORTATION GOAL BASELINE (2016) TARGET (2022) TARGET (2030) TARGET (2050) Reduce visitor transportation emissions Establish baseline N/A N/A N/A Visitor Transportation Indicators Total visitor miles to and from preserves (miles) Establish baseline Percent of visitor trips made via transit, bike, or electric vehicle (%) Establish baseline STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS VISITOR TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Collect Data on Visitor Transportation T1 Establish visitor transportation emissions baseline. NR T2 Complete Rancho San Antonio Carrying Capacity and Multimodal Access Study, implement results, and identify relevant findings that could be applied to other preserves. PL Increase Visitor Use of Electric Vehicles, Bikes, and Public Transit T3 Install electric vehicle chargers at preserve parking lots. L&F T4 Install bike racks at preserves without racks where bikes are allowed. L&F T5 Partner with San Mateo County Parks to identify lessons learned from their parks shuttle pilot project. PL ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 33 Appendix 2: Full Strategies and Actions List by Sector VEHICLE, EQUIPMENT, & BUSINESS TRAVEL STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Increase Electric and Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Equipment V1 Switch fuel tanks to renewable diesel. L&F V2 Track technology development for hybrid, electric, or alternative fuel trucks. When a viable option comes on the market, acquire and test one truck as a pilot project. L&F; VS V3 Install electric vehicle chargers at all field offices. L&F V4 Acquire and test new electric equipment as technology develops. Update Maintenance Operations Manual to provide guidance to choose electric maintenance equipment when tasks allows. L&F V5 As administrative vehicles are up for replacement, replace with electric or hybrid vehicles wherever possible. L&F V6 Purchase one hybrid or long-range electric vehicle for each field office for highway/town travel and on-road maintenance projects. L&F Increase Vehicle Fuel Economy V7 Evaluate fire response program and assess feasibility of alternative fire response models with lower emissions, such as acquiring brush trucks and downsizing F350s (e.g. City of Palo Alto). VS; L&F V8 Update Maintenance Operations Manual to provide guidance to choose most fuel efficient vehicle possible for task. L&F Increase Use of Alternative Electric Transportation Options V9 Acquire and test electric bikes, motorcycles, ATVs, or mules as technology develops. Stage electric transportation equipment at preserves to enable use. L&F; VS V10 Expand ranger patrols on electric bikes, motorcycles, ATVs, or mules. Update Ranger Operations Manual to encourage this option and provide guidance. VS V11 Update Maintenance Operations Manual to provide guidance to use electric transportation equipment to get to/from project site when tasks allows. L&F Reduce Vehicle Miles Driven V12 Evaluate patrol and maintenance circulation routes to identify mileage reduction opportunities. VS; L&F V13 Minimize driving to meetings and trainings through teleconferencing technology and efficient scheduling. IST Purchase Carbon Offsets for Flights V14 Purchase carbon offsets for flights. AS ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 34 EMPLOYEE COMMUTE STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Reduce the Number of Commute Days C1 Expand and encourage telecommuting. HR; IST C2 Expand and encourage compressed work schedules. HR; VS; L&F C3 Assess the feasibility of a weekly or biweekly administrative office closure (compressed schedules or telework on closure day). L&F; HR Incentivize and Enable Low-Emissions Commute Modes C4 Create an incentive for employees commuting via carpool, public transit, bike, or walking. HR C5 Install electric vehicle chargers at all field offices. L&F C6 Create intranet page with commute resources and carpool database. HR C7 Offer competitive pricing for employee electric vehicle charging. AS C8 Assess opportunities to partner with local employee shuttles (e.g., Chariot, San Mateo County, and tech companies). HR C9 Create a guaranteed ride home safeguard to reimburse an employee’s taxi or rideshare ride home in case of personal emergency or illness. HR Reduce Commute Distances C10 Pilot project to allow administrative employees to work out of the new South Area Office two days per week. L&F C11 Assess the feasibility of acquiring more Midpen-owned housing. PL FACILITIES STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Move Towards 100% Renewable Electricity for All Midpen Facilities F1 Purchase 100% renewable electricity for Midpen facilities. L&F F2 Assess the feasibility of rooftop/carport solar at the Foothills Field Office, Skyline Field Office, and preserve parking lots and implement where possible. E&C Maximize Energy Efficiency in New and Existing Buildings F3 Implement energy efficiency upgrades at the Skyline and Foothills Field Offices, including measures identified in the Ecology Action Energy Audit. L&F; E&C F4 Seek the highest level of energy efficiency and sustainability possible while planning for the new Administrative Office, including LEED standard and/or utilizing electric heating to achieve zero net energy. E&C F5 Assess the feasibility of a weekly or biweekly administrative office closure (compressed schedules or telework on closure day). L&F; HR Reduce Solid Waste Generated Through Midpen Operations ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 35 F6 Implement office waste reduction measures: restart compost program, improve recycling, and minimize single-use disposables at events. L&F F7 Study characterization of waste generated from maintenance activities; identify any additional opportunities to reuse or divert maintenance materials. L&F F8 Update waste diversion policy and create contract language to incentivize contractors to use sustainable practices, such as reducing solid waste and fuel use, and provide documentation to Midpen. E&C; AS TENANT RESIDENCES STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Move Towards 100% Renewable Electricity for Residences R1 Encourage residents to purchase 100% renewable electricity . Assess viability of requiring as leases are renewed. L&F R2 Assess the feasibility of rooftop solar on residences, including leasing or power purchasing agreements. L&F; E&C Increase Energy Efficiency R3 Make basic energy efficiency upgrades such as installing weather stripping, LED lighting, and double-paned windows. L&F R4 Assess the viability of more significant energy efficiency improvements such as heat pumps and insulation. L&F Mover Towards Cleaner Heat Sources R5 Reduce woodstove use by installing or upgrading gas or preferably electric heating in homes with woodstoves. L&F Improve Data and Guidance for Decision-Making R6 Ask tenants to share PG&E bills and other heat expenses with Midpen to improve data and GHG monitoring. L&F R7 Create guidelines to incorporate sustainability into decisions about residence improvements. L&F EDUCATION AND OUTREACH STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Improve Internal Capacity to Address Climate Change E1 Establish a Midpen Green Team to implement the Climate Action Plan and continue improving sustainability efforts. NR E2 Improve internal communication about climate change through an intranet page and newsletter on Midpen action, regional news, and resources for staff to improve their sustainability at home. NR Educate Visitors and the Community About Climate Change E3 Provide training on climate change content and communication techniques to volunteers, rangers, and public affairs staff. NR; VS E4 Incorporate climate change into docent-led interpretative activities and Public Affairs outreach events and materials. Encourage VS; PA ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 36 visitors to reduce their GHG emissions with messaging on tangible actions. E5 Use Climate Action Plan actions as demonstration projects to highlight via press releases, social media posts, informal visitor interactions, and signage (when project is in a public area). PA; VS Participate and Play a Leadership Role in Regional and State Efforts E6 Support and influence regional and state climate change-related policies and funding allocations. PA; AS E7 Support and participate in regional climate change initiatives, conferences, and general community of practice. NR; PA E8 Foster partnerships to respond to climate change collaboratively and seek opportunities to share information with other agencies. NR; PA E9 Seek grant opportunities to fund implementation of Climate Action Plan, carbon sequestration, and natural resource resilience efforts. AS LIVESTOCK STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Maximize Soil Carbon Sequestration and Storage L1 Assess current carbon sequestration in grazed and ungrazed rangelands to determine effect of grazing on soil carbon. NR L2 Partner with San Mateo Resource Conservation District to develop carbon farm plan. NR; L&F L3 Implement carbon sequestration projects identified in carbon farm plan. NR; L&F Ensure Grazing Program is Attaining Land Management Objectives L4 Continue monitoring grazing impact on invasive species and fuel reduction objectives. NR L5 Where agricultural sustainability is not a leading factor, assess alternative grassland management techniques such as mowing, prescribed burns, and use of other livestock such as goats. NR VISITOR TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Collect Data on Visitor Transportation T1 Establish visitor transportation emissions baseline. NR T2 Complete Rancho San Antonio Carrying Capacity and Multimodal Access Study, implement results, and identify relevant findings that could be applied to other preserves. PL Increase Visitor Use of Electric Vehicles, Bikes, and Public Transit T3 Install electric vehicle chargers at preserve parking lots. L&F T4 Install bike racks at preserves without racks where bikes are allowed. L&F T5 Partner with San Mateo County Parks to identify lessons learned from their parks shuttle pilot project. PL ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 37 Appendix 3: Full Strategies and Actions List by Department LAND AND FACILITIES ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Complete V1 Switch fuel tanks to renewable diesel. L&F Ongoing C2 Expand and encourage compressed work schedules. HR; VS; L&F F6 Implement office waste reduction measures: restart compost program, improve recycling, and minimize single-use disposables at events. L&F V5 As administrative vehicles are up for replacement, replace with electric or hybrid vehicles wherever possible. L&F Short-Term C5/ V3 Install electric vehicle chargers at all field offices. L&F F1 Purchase 100% renewable electricity for Midpen facilities. L&F F3 Implement energy efficiency upgrades at the Skyline and Foothills Field Offices, including measures identified in the Ecology Action Energy Audit. L&F; E&C L2 Partner with San Mateo Resource Conservation District to develop carbon farm plan. NR; L&F R1 Encourage residents to purchase 100% renewable electricity. Assess viability of requiring as leases are renewed. L&F R6 Ask tenants to share PG&E bills and other heat expenses with Midpen to improve data and GHG monitoring. L&F T3 Install electric vehicle chargers at preserve parking lots. L&F V2 Track technology development for hybrid, electric, or alternative fuel trucks. When a viable option comes on the market, acquire and test one truck as a pilot project. L&F; VS V7 Evaluate fire response program and assess feasibility of alternative fire response models with lower emissions, such as acquiring brush trucks and downsizing F350s (e.g. City of Palo Alto). VS; L&F V9 Acquire and test electric bikes, motorcycles, ATVs, or mules as technology develops. Stage electric transportation equipment at preserves to enable use. L&F; VS Medium-Term C10 Pilot project to allow administrative employees to work out of the new South Area Office two days per week. L&F F7 Study characterization of waste generated from maintenance activities; identify any additional opportunities to reuse or divert maintenance materials. L&F L3 Implement carbon sequestration projects identified in carbon farm plan. NR; L&F ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 38 R2 Assess the feasibility of rooftop solar on residences, including leasing or power purchasing agreements. L&F; E&C R3 Make basic energy efficiency upgrades such as installing weather stripping, LED lighting, and double-paned windows. L&F T4 Install bike racks at preserves without racks where bikes are allowed. L&F V4 Acquire and test new electric equipment as technology develops. Update Maintenance Operations Manual to provide guidance to choose electric maintenance equipment when tasks allows. L&F V8 Update Maintenance Operations Manual to provide guidance to choose most fuel efficient vehicle possible for task. L&F V11 Update Maintenance Operations Manual to provide guidance to use electric transportation equipment to get to/from project site when tasks allows. L&F V12 Evaluate patrol and maintenance circulation routes to identify mileage reduction opportunities. VS; L&F Long-Term C3/ F5 Assess the feasibility of a weekly or biweekly administrative office closure (compressed schedules or telework on closure day). L&F; HR R4 Assess the viability of more significant energy efficiency improvements such as heat pumps and insulation. L&F R5 Reduce woodstove use by installing or upgrading gas or preferably electric heating in homes with woodstoves. L&F R7 Create guidelines to incorporate sustainability into decisions about residence improvements. L&F V6 Purchase one hybrid or long-range electric vehicle for each field office for highway/town travel and on-road maintenance projects. L&F NATURAL RESOURCES ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Ongoing E1 Establish a Midpen Green Team to implement the Climate Action Plan and continue improving sustainability efforts. NR E3 Provide training on climate change content and communication techniques to volunteers, rangers, and public affairs staff. NR; VS E7 Support and participate in regional climate change initiatives, conferences, and general community of practice. NR; PA E8 Foster partnerships to respond to climate change collaboratively and seek opportunities to share information with other agencies. NR; PA L4 Continue monitoring grazing impact on invasive species and fuel reduction objectives. NR T1 Establish visitor transportation emissions baseline. NR Short-Term E2 Improve internal communication about climate change through an intranet page and newsletter on Midpen action, regional news, and resources for staff to improve their sustainability at home. NR ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 39 L1 Assess current carbon sequestration in grazed and ungrazed rangelands to determine effect of grazing on soil carbon. NR L2 Partner with San Mateo Resource Conservation District to develop carbon farm plan. NR; L&F Medium-Term L3 Implement carbon sequestration projects identified in carbon farm plan. NR; L&F L5 Where agricultural sustainability is not a leading factor, assess alternative grassland management techniques such as mowing, prescribed burns, and use of other livestock such as goats. NR VISITOR SERVICES ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Ongoing C2 Expand and encourage compressed work schedules. HR; VS; L&F E3 Provide training on climate change content and communication techniques to docents, rangers, and public affairs staff. NR; VS E4 Incorporate climate change into docent-led interpretative activities and Public Affairs outreach events and materials. Encourage visitors to reduce their GHG emissions with messaging on tangible actions. VS; PA Short-Term V2 Track technology development for hybrid, electric, or alternative fuel trucks. When a viable option comes on the market, acquire and test one truck as a pilot project. L&F; VS V7 Evaluate fire response program and assess feasibility of alternative fire response models with lower emissions, such as acquiring brush trucks and downsizing F350s (e.g. City of Palo Alto). VS; L&F V9 Acquire and test electric bikes, motorcycles, ATVs, or mules as technology develops. Stage electric transportation equipment at preserves to enable use. L&F; VS Medium-Term E5 Use Climate Action Plan actions as demonstration projects to highlight via press releases, social media posts, informal visitor interactions, and signage (when project is in a public area). PA; VS V10 Expand ranger patrols on electric bikes, motorcycles, ATVs, or mules. Update Ranger Operations Manual to encourage this option and provide guidance. VS V12 Evaluate patrol and maintenance circulation routes to identify mileage reduction opportunities. VS; L&F HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Ongoing ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 40 C1 Expand and encourage telecommuting. HR; IST C2 Expand and encourage compressed work schedules. HR; VS; L&F Short-Term C4 Create an incentive for employees commuting via carpool, public transit, bike, or walking. HR C6 Create intranet page with commute resources and carpool database. HR C9 Create a guaranteed ride home safeguard to reimburse an employee’s taxi or rideshare ride home in case of personal emergency or illness. HR Long-Term C3/ F5 Assess the feasibility of a weekly or biweekly administrative office closure (compressed schedules or telework on closure day). L&F; HR C8 Assess opportunities to partner with local employee shuttles (e.g., Chariot, San Mateo County, and tech companies). HR ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Short-Term F3 Implement energy efficiency upgrades at the Skyline and Foothills Field Offices, including measures identified in the Ecology Action Energy Audit. L&F; E&C F4 Seek the highest level of energy efficiency and sustainability possible while planning for the new Administrative Office, including LEED standard and/or utilizing electric heating to achieve zero net energy. E&C Medium-Term F2 Assess the feasibility of rooftop/carport solar at the Foothills Field Office, Skyline Field Office, and preserve parking lots and implement where possible. E&C F8 Update waste diversion policy and create contract language to incentivize contractors to use sustainable practices, such as reducing solid waste and fuel use, and provide documentation to Midpen. E&C; AS R2 Assess the feasibility of rooftop solar on residences, including leasing or power purchasing agreements. L&F; E&C ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Ongoing E6 Support and influence regional and state climate change-related policies and funding allocations. PA; AS Short-Term C7 Offer competitive pricing for employee electric vehicle charging. AS ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 41 E9 Seek grant opportunities to fund implementation of Climate Action Plan, carbon sequestration, and resilience efforts. AS V14 Purchase carbon offsets for flights. AS Medium-Term F8 Update waste diversion policy and create contract language to incentivize contractors to use sustainable practices, such as reducing solid waste and fuel use, and provide documentation. E&C; AS PUBLIC AFFAIRS ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Ongoing E4 Incorporate climate change into docent-led interpretative activities and Public Affairs outreach events and materials. Encourage visitors to reduce their GHG emissions with messaging on tangible actions. VS; PA E6 Support and influence regional and state climate change-related policies and funding allocations. PA; AS E7 Support and participate in regional climate change initiatives, conferences, and general community of practice. NR; PA E8 Foster partnerships to respond to climate change collaboratively and seek opportunities to share information with other agencies. NR; PA Medium-Term E5 Use Climate Action Plan actions as demonstration projects to highlight via press releases, social media posts, informal visitor interactions, and signage (when project is in a public area). PA; VS PLANNING ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Ongoing T2 Complete Rancho San Antonio Carrying Capacity and Multimodal Access Study, implement results, and identify relevant findings that could be applied to other preserves. PL Long-Term C11 Assess the feasibility of acquiring more Midpen-owned housing. PL T5 Partner with San Mateo County Parks to identify lessons learned from their parks shuttle pilot project. PL INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY ACTIONS LEAD DEPARTMENT TIMEFRAME Ongoing C1 Expand and encourage telecommuting. HR; IST V13 Minimize driving to meetings and trainings through teleconferencing technology and efficient scheduling. IST ATTACHMENT 5 Climate Action Plan | October 2018 | page 42 Appendix 4: Full List of Performance Indicators VEHICLE, EQUIPMENT, & BUSINESS TRAVEL INDICATORS BASELINE (2016) Average vehicle fuel economy (miles per gallon) 15.6 Total fleet vehicle miles traveled (miles, WEX cards only) 883,713 Proportion of equipment that is powered by renewable fuel or electricity (%) 0% Annual miles flown for business travel (miles) 50,000 EMPLOYEE COMMUTE INDICATORS BASELINE (2016) Total drive alone employee vehicle miles traveled (miles) 1,350,784 Percent of employees who always drive alone to work (%) 83% Percent of employees who work a compressed 9/80 schedule (%) 32% Percent of administrative employees who telecommute regularly (%) 9% FACILITIES INDICATORS BASELINE (2016) Administrative office electricity use per square foot (annual kWh/SQFT) 11.34 Field office average electricity use per square foot (annual kWh/SQFT) 5.37 Percent of electricity from renewable sources (%) 33% Solid waste diversion rate (% diverted) 34% TENANT RESIDENCES INDICATORS BASELINE (2016) Percent of tenant residences using electric heat (%) 32% Percent of tenants purchasing highest renewable option from utility (%) 0% EDUCATION AND OUTREACH INDICATORS BASELINE (2016) Number of staff engaged through the Green Team or internal newsletter Establish baseline Number of docents and other volunteers trained to discuss climate change Establish baseline Number of press releases/newsletters/social media posts on climate cha nge Establish baseline LIVESTOCK INDICATORS BASELINE (2016) Number of animals with high enteric emissions (year-round equivalent cattle, excluding calves on milk) 374 Number of animals with low enteric emissions (year -round equivalent horses, sheep, pigs, goats, alpacas, donkeys) 177 Annual additional landscape carbon sequestration due to grazing (MTCO2e) Establish baseline Percent of annual livestock emissions offset by carbon sequestration projects (%) 0% VISITOR TRANSPORTATION INDICATORS BASELINE (2016) Total visitor miles to and from preserves (miles) Establish baseline Percent of visitor trips made via transit, bike, or electric vehicle (%) Establish baseline ATTACHMENT 5 R-10-71 Meeting 10-15 June 9, 2010 AGENDA ITEM 9 AGENDA ITEM Resolution in Opposition to the Proposed Development of the Redwood City Salt Ponds. GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution Opposing Development of Redwood City Salt Ponds. SUMMARY The proposed development of a 1,436-acre salt harvesting site in Redwood City on the shores of San Francisco Bay within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District runs counter to the need to protect the area’s fragile ecosystems. Accordingly, the General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors adopt a resolution opposing the plan. DISCUSSION DMB Associates, a developer from Arizona, is proposing to build the largest housing development on the shores of San Francisco Bay since Foster City was constructed 50 years ago. The project, which DMB hopes to start in 2013, is to partly develop and partly restore a 1,436- acre salt harvesting site in Redwood City with up to 12,000 homes for about 30,000 people on land owned by Cargill Salt. Most of the area would be developed with homes, businesses and sports fields, and less than one third, 436 acres, would be restored wetlands. As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has pointed out in a letter about the proposal: "San Francisco Bay and its adjacent waters are critically important aquatic resources that warrant special attention and protection” which is perhaps why this project has motivated over 100 current and former elected officials from all nine Bay Area counties and organizations and agencies such as Audubon California, the Sierra Club and the West Bay Sanitary District to communicate their fervent opposition to the plan. There are several reasons for the District to be concerned that the proposed development, which is within the District’s jurisdictional boundary, adjacent to and within the authorized expansion boundaries of the Don Edwards National ATTACHMENT 6 R-10-71 Page 2 Wildlife Refuge and adjacent to the Bair Island Ecological Preserve, runs counter to the need to protect and restore the area’s fragile ecosystems: Only five percent of the former salt marsh habitat is left and today supports numerous endangered species such as the California Clapper Rail and the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. If the project were to go forward, less than one third of the salt marsh area would be restored, the remaining area would be permanently destroyed. The salt ponds are part of the bay and, rather than paved, they should be restored to tidal marsh for wildlife habitat, natural flood protection and cleaner water. The bay’s salt ponds provide the best opportunity to restore a portion of the 150,000 acres of valuable wetlands converted to other land uses by previous generations. Currently, the bay land in question is zoned as a tidal plain which means that housing is not permitted on this sea-level, bay front property. Tidal plain allows for salt production, parks and other open space uses, not for housing. A floodplain at sea level is an inappropriate location for housing during a time of global warming because climate change could lift the bay's water level up to 55 inches by the end of the century. No infrastructure currently exists on the shallow salt ponds that dot the area. The proposed development would require the building of 223 acres of paved city streets in addition to transit, sewage and other infrastructure. The fragile environment of San Francisco Bay and the long-term environmental degradation that can occur from a development of this scale in this fragile environmental context are reasons to oppose the plan and urge that these open space areas remain as open space forever. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated from the adoption of this resolution. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice was provided pursuant to the Brown Act. No additional notice is necessary. CEQA COMPLIANCE No compliance is required as this action is not a project under CEQA. ATTACHMENT 6 R-10-71 Page 3 NEXT STEP If approved by the Board, staff will send the resolution to the Redwood City Council. Attachment: Resolution Prepared by: Rudy Jurgensen, Public Affairs Manager Contact person: Same as above ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION 10-21 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF REDWOOD CITY’S SALT PONDS The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows: WHEREAS, a large housing development with up to 12,000 homes for 30,000 people has been proposed on a 1,436-acre salt harvesting site in Redwood City on the shores of San Francisco Bay; and WHEREAS, over 100 current and former elected officials from all nine Bay Area counties and organizations and agencies such as Audubon California, the Sierra Club and the West Bay Sanitary District are opposed to the plan; and WHEREAS, the salt ponds are part of the bay and, rather than paved, should be restored to tidal marsh for wildlife habitat, natural flood protection and cleaner water; and WHEREAS, the bay’s salt ponds provide the best opportunity to restore a portion of the 150,000 acres of valuable wetlands destroyed by previous generations. WHEREAS, the land is zoned as a tidal plain where housing is not permitted; and WHEREAS, a floodplain at sea level is an in appropriate location for housing during a time of global warming; and WHEREAS, housing should not be built at sea level because climate change could lift the bay's water level up to 55 inches by the end of the century. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District opposes the development of Redwood City’s salt ponds. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District do hereby adopt this resolution this, the 9th day of June, 2010. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ATTACHMENT 6 Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-84 Meeting 20-16 July 22, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 12 AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a Letter of Support for a University of California Davis (UCD) proposal to Plan and Design Newt Connectivity Crossings along Alma Bridge Road in Santa Clara County GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Receive a Board Member request to consider a letter of support for grant funding for a Newt Connectivity Crossings Project led by the University of California Davis to provide a safe wildlife crossing across Alma Bridge Road for newts traveling from the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve area to Lexington Reservoir. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION On July 18, 2020, Board Director Yoriko Kishimoto received a request for a letter of support from a representative of the Audubon Society (Attachment 1) for a Proposition 68 grant to fund a University of California Davis project that will plan, design, and implement a pilot road crossing for newts on Alma Bridge Road. Letters of support are due well before August 7, when the grant application is due. For this reason, this item and a draft letter of support is being expedited to the full Board for consideration (Attachment 2). The next Board meeting is scheduled for August 12, after the grant materials are due. District Legislative Program Consistency: Staff has evaluated the request for consistency with the District’s Legislative Program (Attachment 3). The primary focus of the Legislative Program is to support the District’s mission and forward annual Board-adopted goals. The Board-adopted Legislative Program includes goals, priorities, and policy positions that support wildlife corridors as specified below: • Goal 1: Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental protection vision with partners o Priority #1 Wildlife Corridors: Greater funding opportunities and permit streamlining to preserve and enhance wildlife corridors; promote wildlife permeability in the built environment. Position #3: Enhances and funds regional collaboration and coordination of conservation efforts. Position #7: Enhances the District’s ability to create and pursue opportunities to acquire an integrated greenbelt of protected open space, trails and habitat corridors. R-20-84 Page 2 • Goal 2: Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands o Position #5: Enhances or streamlines the integration of wildlife corridors into transportation infrastructure and promotes its ongoing maintenance within District lands and adjacent entities, which may extend to statewide and international linkages. Based on the analysis above, the Board of Directors may wish to submit letter of support focused on the policy positions adopted as part of the annual Legislative Program. Please see Attachment 2 for a copy of the proposed Letter of Support. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated from a decision on this item and may result in funding to improve wildlife connectivity as it affects a population of newts that depend in part on District lands to complete their life cycle. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW Due to the time-sensitive nature of the item there has been no prior Board Committee review. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS If the Board approves the letter of support, staff will submit a signed letter to grant funder. Attachments: 1. Copy of email request from the Audubon Society 2. Draft Letter of Support for Board Consideration 3. Adopted District Legislative Program Responsible Department Head: Ana Ruiz, General Manager Prepared by: Ana Ruiz, General Manager Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager From:Shani Kleinhaus To:Jennifer Woodworth Cc:Katja Irvin; Merav Vonshak; Anne Parsons; Lennie Roberts; Mike Ferrera Subject:Funds for Newts: request for support for a prop 68 grant application Date:Saturday, July 18, 2020 12:31:40 PM Attachments:Request to Midpen for support for a grant proposal.pdf Attachment to request- proposed language for a Letter of support.pdf EXTERNAL Dear President of the Board Holman and Midpeninsula Open Space Directors, Please find attached: 1) a letter from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, the Sierra Club and Bioblitz.club asking for your support for a proposed grant application, organized by the Road Ecology Center of UC Davis, for prop. 68 funding for a project that would plan, design and implement a pilot road crossing project for newts on Alma Bridge Road. 2) Proposed language for a letter of support The grant is due August 7, and the Road Ecology Center of UC Davis would need to receive all the materials before that date. We hope you can add this to your agenda, and vote to submit a letter from the Midpen Board of Directors. If that is not feasible, please consider submitting individual support letter, Thank you for your attention, Shani ------------- Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D. Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society 22221 McClellan Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 650-868-2114 advocate@scvas.org Attachment 1 Attachment 2 July 22, 2020 Dr. Fraser Shilling Road Ecology Center Dept. of Environmental Science and Policy One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 email: fmshilling@ucdavis.edu RE: Support for Planning and Design for Newt Connectivity Crossings, Santa Clara County Dear Dr. Shilling, Thank you for the opportunity to provide a letter of support for the University of California Davis (UCD) proposal for 2020 Wildlife Conservation Board Proposition 68 grant opportunities. UCD's grant proposal meets two of the benefits required under the grant solicitation: support of the State Wildlife Action Plan priority habitats and support for the protection and/or enhancement of biodiversity values. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) has been following the issue of road mortality at Alma Bridge Road since being made aware of this issue in 2017. Our staff has engaged in conversations with UCD and other organizations and agencies with the hope that we can build a collaborative approach to address the mortality of California newt (Taricha torosa) and rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa) along this roadway. Midpen owns and manages over 19,000 acres of open space lands surrounding Lexington Reservoir, bordering Alma Bridge Road and east of the reservoir. Midpen does not own or control Alma Bridge Road, which is managed by the Santa Clara County and owns only a small portion of lands directly adjacent to Alma Bridge Road, with most of lands along the roadway owned by Valley Water. Mipen has been working collaboratively to address newt mortality along Alma Bridge Road and is pursuing a collaborative study with stakeholders, including the primary land holders, to further quantify impacts of roadkill to the newt population., While this study is separate from the grant proposal, the results of the study will likely support the work proposed by UC Davis and assist in gaining support from other stakeholders and the underlying Alma Bridge Road fee title and easement holders for the proposed project. We support funding this regionally important work to conserve these newt species. The Planning and Design for Newt Connectivity Crossings, Santa Clara County Project, led by the University of California, Davis, will contribute important work to protect and preserve the newt crossing, as well as the biological diversity and genetic integrity of wildlife in Santa Clara County. Thank you for your consideration and support, Karen Holman Midpen Board President CC: Midpen Board of Directors Ana Ruiz, Midpen General Manager Julie Anderson, Midpen Senior Resource Management Specialist 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Legislative Program 2020 Adopted February 12, 2020 ATTACHMENT 3 2 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Advocacy of the District’s Interests ..................................................................................................... 4 District Legislative Priorities .................................................................................................................... 6 Goal 1: Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental protection vision with partners .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Goal 2: Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ....................................... 6 Goal 3: Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision............ 6 Goal 4: Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 District Legislative Policy Positions ........................................................................................................ 7 Goal 1: Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental protection vision with partners .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Goal 2: Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ........................................ 7 Goal 3: Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision............. 9 Goal 4: Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 2020 Regional/Local Priorities ................................................................................................................ 11 Plan Bay Area 2050 .............................................................................................................................. 11 San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Measure AA Implementation .................................... 11 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Measure B Implementation ................................. 11 San Mateo County Transit District Measure W Implementation .................................................. 11 Regional Collaboration ........................................................................................................................ 11 2020 Federal Legislative Priorities ......................................................................................................... 12 Land and Water Conservation Fund ................................................................................................. 12 Infrastructure Investment ................................................................................................................... 12 National Monument Preservation ..................................................................................................... 12 Wildlife Corridors ................................................................................................................................ 12 Appendix A: .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Strategic Plan for FY2020-21 ............................................... 13 Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners ..................................................................................................................................... 13 ATTACHMENT 3 3 Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ................................ 13 Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision ..... 13 Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission ........................................................................................................................................ 13 ATTACHMENT 3 4 Introduction Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Mission: To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity, protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. As part of the Coastside Protection Area Service Plan, a Coastside mission was adopted: 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 further these missions, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) annually reviews opportunities and challenges and establishes legislative program priorities and policy statements to guide its advocacy activities at the regional, state and federal levels. Advocacy of the District’s Interests While this document attempts to cover a wide variety of legislative issues that may impact the District, it is not comprehensive, complete or final. Throughout the state and federal legislative sessions, the District will review and take positions on various proposed policies and state or federal budget items. Per Section 2.0 of Board Policy 1.11, legislative advocacy is considered in the following manner: Section 2.0: Local, State, and Federal Legislative Advocacy a.The Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) receives periodic updates throughout the year regarding the District’s legislative program. When LFPAC determines that proposed legislation may affect District business, it may direct the General Manager to prepare a recommendation for consideration by the full Board or may direct the General Manager to take action to support or oppose the legislation without full Board approval when there is not adequate time to convene the full Board. In such cases, the General Manager or designee shall report to the Board any actions taken to support or oppose legislation at or before the next Board meeting. b.When time is so short that neither the full Board nor LFPAC can be convened to consider positions to support or oppose local, state or federal legislation, the General Manager is authorized to take a position on behalf of the District if the legislation: i.Is related to the District’s mission; AND ii.Would directly impact the District’s business, such as project delivery, operations, finances, legal authority, or other District responsibilities; AND iii.The position being taken is consistent/inconsistent with existing District policy, past action, or the District’s annual Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives; OR ATTACHMENT 3 5 iv.The legislation carries other considerations that make it contrary to the District’s interests. In such instances, the General Manager or designee shall report to the Board any actions taken to support or oppose the legislation at or before the next Board meeting. c.Full Board action is required regarding legislation that is not clearly within the criteria listed above under Section 2.b. or guided by direction previously given by LFPAC. All legislation on which the District takes a position will be closely tracked by the General Manager’s Office (GMO) and reported to the Board of Directors. Public Affairs staff will be responsible for reporting similar information to key departments. Contracted state advocacy teams will represent District interests based upon the policies contained in the Legislative Session Program. In addition to District position letters, Board members and District staff may be asked to testify before or meet with relevant legislators or members of the executive branch to discuss issues requiring heightened advocacy. If this is the case, District staff must first notify and/or confirm approval of the GMO to ensure that positions taken are consistent with the Board-approved Legislative Session Program. ATTACHMENT 3 6 District Legislative Priorities The following are the legislative priorities for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District during the 2020 State Legislative Session. Annual priority-setting considers a combination of issues that relate directly to important District-led projects or initiatives, opportunities to support or oppose state legislative initiatives sponsored by others that affect the District’s mission, and any issues that are identified by the Board as particularly significant. Funding measures are the most common of these priorities and are generally tied to the creation of new funding sources or the processes that prescribe the allocation of existing funding sources. The 2020 legislative priorities are listed and grouped below consistent with the Board’s annual Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives (See Appendix A) to provide a clear connection to agency priorities: Goal 1: Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental protection vision with partners 1.Wildlife Corridors: Greater funding opportunities and permit streamlining to preserve and enhance wildlife corridors; promote wildlife permeability in the built environment. 2.Anticoagulant Rodenticides: Eliminate the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides to protect raptors, large mammals and other nontarget native wildlife. Goal 2: Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands 1.Responsible Wildland Fire Vegetation Management: Effective guidelines for wildland fire fuel reduction efforts that minimize potential impacts to rare and endangered species and the risk of exacerbating the spread of invasive species. Goal 3: Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision 1.Equitable Access: Expanded access to and enhanced funding eligibility for new and improved greenspace opportunities for underserved communities. 2.Trail Corridors: Linking of preserve trails to regional trails and ultimately to the places where people live and work. Goal 4: Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission 1.Climate Change Bond: Climate change funding that benefits a wide range of open space priorities and promotes landscape climate resilience, particularly in the Bay Area. 2.Proposition 68 Implementation: Efforts to ensure that parks bond funds are allocated in a timely, equitable, and responsible manner, and that the resulting grant programs support District opens space and public access projects. 3.Cap and Trade/Climate-Related Funding: Funding that supports the climate resiliency ATTACHMENT 3 7 benefits of open space and working lands, including carbon sequestration. 4.Green Bonds: Efforts to allow the California Natural Resources Agency to work with the State Treasurer’s Office to develop standards for green bond projects, in which California can invest. 5.Public Safety Power Shutoffs: State efforts to ease the burden of PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoffs on local agency operations. District Legislative Policy Positions The ability of the District to deliver its mission and remain a sustainable organization can be impacted by legislation proposed on the local, state or federal level. To this end, proactive, Board-approved policy positions taken by the District on a variety of relevant issue areas help to ensure consistency in advocacy. District policy positions are then grouped by strategic plan goals. Goal 1: Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental protection vision with partners 1.Enhances the purchase or acquisition of regional and strategic open space lands and connects District lands to federal, state, county, city and other protected open space, parklands, bay lands, watershed lands, wildlife corridors and agricultural lands. 2.Protects public open space, property rights, interests and easements. 3.Enhances and funds regional collaboration and coordination of conservation efforts. 4.Promotes the use of urban infill and urban growth boundaries to avoid sprawl and prevent pressure on developing open spaces and further encroachment into the wildland-urban interface and open space buffer areas. 5.Expands and restores protected open space lands to enhance biodiversity, climate change resilience, and scenic, rural character. 6.Ensures that the zoning of permanently protected lands supports activities that further the District’s mission (preservation, natural resource protection, public access and education, agriculture). 7.Enhances the District’s ability to create and pursue opportunities to acquire an integrated greenbelt of protected open space, trails and habitat corridors. 8.Protects natural and working lands from future development threats. Goal 2: Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands 1.Ensures reasonable setback requirements that allow minimum defensible space clearances to be met by private property owners to prevent catastrophic fires that damage habitats and pose a high public safety hazard. ATTACHMENT 3 8 2.Furthers implementation of Senate Bill 32 (2016), the Global Warming Solutions Act that establishes a greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target for the state of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. 3.Recognizes and incentivizes the use of natural and working lands for the purpose of carbon sequestration. 4.Supports effective and comprehensive Districtwide, regional and statewide measures that respond to sea level rise and other effects of climate change and enhance ecological and community resilience. 5.Enhances or streamlines the integration of wildlife corridors into transportation infrastructure and promotes its ongoing maintenance within District lands and adjacent entities, which may extend to statewide and international linkages. 6.Promotes advance mitigation programs to enhance wildlife corridor networks. 7.Connects habitats that support a diverse array of native plants and animals. 8.Encourages public road management agencies to control invasive plant populations and incorporate safe pedestrian and wildlife crossings across roadways and highways. 9.Eliminates the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. 10.Supports increased knowledge, management and ultimately the eradication of Sudden Oak Death disease. 11.Provides permit exemptions for natural resources protection and restoration projects from regulations aimed to protect the natural environment from typical development projects. 12.Supports maintaining state and federal lists of endangered species justified through conclusive biological evidence. 13.Helps efforts to protect, conserve, restore and enhance the natural resources of the District, its coast, and adjacent waters for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations. 14.Enables Native American communities’ involvement in cultural and land management practices to restore and protect natural resources and enhance landscape resilience. 15.Protects and restores watersheds, water quality, natural water courses, wetlands and hydrologic processes consistent with the District’s Resource Management Plan. 16.Promotes expedited removal of select trees and brush by public agencies for fire protection, public safety and enhanced climate resilience, while minimizing potential impacts to rare and endangered species and the risk of exacerbating the spread of invasive species. 17.Supports wildland fire management to become a more natural component of the ecosystem and minimizes its negative effects on the community and environment. 18.Supports working farms and ranches on public open space land that further conservation and climate resilience goals. 19.Supports the creation of and repairs to farm labor housing to foster farm operation sustainability that ultimately furthers conservation and climate resilience goals. ATTACHMENT 3 9 20.Incentivizes agricultural operations to invest in energy-efficient and water-efficient irrigation technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water use. 21.Aids enforcement of marijuana laws related to the implementation of Prop 64 (2016) to protect natural lands from the destruction caused by illegal marijuana grows. 22.Protects natural lands from the destruction caused by illegal marijuana grows, prohibits marijuana grows on public lands, and restores damaged habitats. Goal 3: Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision 1.Helps expand educational opportunities for underserved and non-English speaking communities about natural resources and the benefits of open space. 2.Promotes volunteer involvement and engagement of diverse communities in ongoing conservation, restoration, enhancement and interpretation of the District’s natural resources. 3.Engages children and parents in the enjoyment and appreciation of outdoor open spaces to inspire the next generation of conservation champions. 4.Funds and enables programs that hire youth to work in parks and open space and encourages them to consider careers in conservation. 5.Keeps preserves safe, clean, accessible and inviting for healthy exercise and enjoyment. 6.Promotes awareness and access to programs and activities that increase outdoor physical activity. 7.Protects and helps fund the protection and public interpretation of cultural and historic resources located on natural open space and working lands. 8.Helps fund and streamline emergency repairs to District infrastructure, including trails and public access amenities. 9.Increases public access to preserved land regionwide. 10.Helps link preserve trails to other regional trails and ultimately to the places where people live and work. 11.Improves local transportation to enable better connectivity between communities and open space preserves. 12.Limits public use of drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) consistent with Board policies to preserve the tranquility of outdoor experiences, natural activities, and minimize risk of wildfire. Goal 4: Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission 1.Preserves existing tax revenues and tax authority. 2.Lowers the vote threshold for locally imposed special taxes from two-thirds to 55 percent. ATTACHMENT 3 10 3.Preserves tax-exempt status for municipal bonds on a state and federal level. 4.Expands state and federal incentives that promote the issuance of green bonds. 5.Preserves and promotes managerial discretion in effective and productive recruiting, hiring, firing and day-to-day oversight of staff at all levels. 6.Preserves and promotes open, transparent, accountable government administrative practices that promote the efficient and timely delivery of public services, facilitate public involvement, and support effective and timely decision-making. 7.Maintains prevailing wage exemptions for volunteers. 8.Enables statewide efforts to increase broadband connectivity to public agency infrastructure in remote areas. 9.Preserves and promotes cost-effective, fair, and efficient contracting practices that give taxpayers the best value for their dollar. 10.Enables streamlining of contracting and bidding processes and attracts greater contractor and vendor competition. 11.Provides funding and funding flexibility to achieve mission-related goals including, but not limited to: a.District operations and infrastructure b.Integrated Pest Management c.Programs that hire youth to work in parks and open space and encourages them to consider careers in conservation d.Partnership approaches to environmental education and public outreach efforts at local and state levels. e.Implementation of improvements that meet the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and other accessibility standards in District preserves. f.The protection of prime and sustainable agricultural lands, including investments in agricultural-support infrastructure. g.Funding for local partners to receive technical support for agriculture and natural resources enhancement. 12.Promotes closer collaboration and coordination between regulatory agencies to enhance permit processing efficiency and reduces overall project costs. 13.Improves and streamlines permitting, CEQA review and compliance processes for emergency repairs, routine maintenance, habitat restoration, and public access projects. 14.Provides open space districts the authority to utilize a variety of contracting methods to construct projects, including design-build methodologies. 15.Promotes implementation of and education about sustainable design and construction, including but not limited to LEED buildings, stormwater treatment and runoff reduction, local (within 150-mile radius of project) contractor/consultant hiring, construction material reuse/recycling, and use of green/energy efficient materials and equipment. ATTACHMENT 3 11 2020 Regional/Local Priorities Though there is a growing recognition of the importance of regional planning and coordination, local land use authority dominates California planning processes in both the built and natural environments. In 2020, the District supports: Plan Bay Area 2050 Ratification of the final preferred scenario of the Plan Bay Area 2050 that curbs urban boundary expansion, more tightly integrates open space preservation and stewardship, and funds District priorities in adopted Priority Conservation Areas (PCA). San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Measure AA Implementation Grant program guidelines for SFBRA's Measure AA funds that enable implementation of District priority projects. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Measure B Implementation Advance mitigation allocation guidelines for VTA's recently passed Measure B funds that enable implementation of District priority projects. San Mateo County Transit District Measure W Implementation Allocation guidelines that enable regional bicycle/pedestrian network connectivity with District projects and regional trail plans. Regional Collaboration Efforts to enhance and fund regional collaboration and coordination of conservation plans. ATTACHMENT 3 12 2020 Federal Legislative Priorities Given the outcomes of the 2016 federal elections, active advocacy at the federal level may be most effectively directed toward protecting existing environmental priorities and regulations. In 2020, the District will focus on the following: Land and Water Conservation Fund Fully funding the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. Infrastructure Investment Inclusion of active transportation and parks-related projects in federal funding allocations for infrastructure. National Monument Preservation Policies that protect and designate national monuments within our region that are important to fulfilling the District’s mission. Wildlife Corridors Policies that enhance habitat connectivity on nonfederal lands through wildlife crossings and other habitat connectivity projects. ATTACHMENT 3 13 Appendix A: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Strategic Plan for FY2020-21 Online at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/StrategicPlan_2021.pdf Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners •Objective 1 – Continue implementation of the District’s Vision Plan and communicate progress on projects through reporting results and building partner relationships •Objective 2 –Build and strengthen diverse partnerships to implement a collaborative and science-based approach to regional environmental protection •Objective 3 – Build and strengthen relationships with legislators to advocate environmental protection goals •Objective 4 – Preserve open space lands of local and regional significance Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands •Objective 1 – Take a regional leadership role in promoting the benefits of open space •Objective 2 – Protect and restore the natural environment in a manner that expands regional resiliency and climate change adaptation to preserve healthy natural systems •Objective 3 – Work with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen the prevention of, preparation for and response to wildland fires for enhanced ecosystem resiliency and public safety •Objective 4 – Support the viability of sustainable agriculture and character of rural communities Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision •Objective 1 – Communicate the benefits of a regional environmental protection vision •Objective 2 – Refine and implement a comprehensive public engagement strategy, including the outreach to diverse communities and enhanced public education programs •Objective 3 – Expand opportunities to connect people to their public open space preserves consistent with an environmental protection vision •Objective 4 – Reflect the diverse communities we serve in the District’s, staff, volunteers, and partners Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission •Objective 1 – Provide the necessary resources, tools, training, and infrastructure, including technology upgrades and capacity building ATTACHMENT 3 14 •Objective 2 – Continuously evaluate and improve processes and business model to effectively and efficiently deliver Vision Plan projects and the District’s ongoing functions •Objective 3 - Build state of readiness for potential disruptions by completing a risk assessment and creating a business continuity plan •Objective 4 – Continue to engage constituents for bond sales and via the work of the Bond Oversight Committee – “Promises made, promises kept.” •Objective 5 – Remain financially sustainable by pursuing and ensuring discretionary funding opportunities and partnerships to augment operating, capital, and bond funding sources, and ensure that large capital expenses and land acquisitions, including associated public access and land management costs, are evaluated within the long-term financial model and remain financially sustainable •Objective 6 – Continue to recruit, develop and retain talented staff to implement the District's mission and strengthen our organizational capacity ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 4 DATE July 22, 2020 MEMO TO: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager FROM: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist CC: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resource Manager SUBJECT: Inventory and Monitoring of Vegetation on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands _____________________________________________________________________________ Recent correspondence and comment from the public has alleged that the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) does not monitor District lands or the impact and effectiveness of management actions on the lands it manages. This memorandum presents an overview of the major monitoring areas and data collection staff uses in fulfilling the responsibility of caring for a diverse mix of ecosystems, including estuarine, marine, oak woodland, redwood forest, coastal scrub, and oak savannah. The complex and constantly changing ecosystems of District preserves are comprised of a wide diversity of interrelated resources that sometimes have competing needs for preservation and management. The District actively inventories and monitors all sites in which any discretionary action occurs following guidelines and protocols from scientifically-validated sources and accepted best practices. Although this memorandum focuses on monitoring of vegetation, the District actively monitors other resources, including wildlife, earth sciences (i.e. hydrology and soils), and cultural resources. Monitoring programs need to be robust enough to inform management decisions in a meaningful way, yet not be so onerous that the monitoring costs outweigh the benefits. Monitoring requirements vary depending on the activity undertaken and the conditions in the area where the activity is to occur. Individual monitoring protocols are determined on a case-by-case basis for each project at the discretion of professional Midpen biologist and resource management staff. Monitoring and reporting may also be required as part of mitigation adopted to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, or any permits obtained to perform specific work activities. MONITORING ON DISTRICT LANDS Presented below are the major program areas and individual projects where Midpen staff monitor both to detect change over time (before/after) and to establish baseline conditions. Please note, this is not an exhaustive list of all types of monitoring performed on District lands. Page 2 of 4 Vegetation Conservation Grazing Program The monitoring program for rangeland habitats is designed to ensure that the specific rangeland uses are in compliance with site-specific Rangeland Management Plans, any agricultural conservation easements, and the stewardship goals and objectives. See attachment 1 for an example monitoring report for the Conservation Grazing Program. The following guidelines outline monitoring criteria: • Monitor forage utilization and livestock distribution trends to ensure appropriate residual dry matter (RDM) remains on the ground to achieve desired resource management objectives, including soil stability and water quality; • Monitor the condition of livestock infrastructure, including water systems, gates and fencing, to ensure conformity with the terms of the easement and to improve rangeland and grazing management practices; • Monitor invasive vegetation with an emphasis on location, distribution and abundance of plant species. Describe methods for treatment or control of invasive species (grazing, herbicide application, mowing, etc.) and vegetation response to treatment methods; • Monitor ponds to ensure habitat for special status wildlife species free of invasive predators such as fish and/or bullfrogs; • Monitor desirable vegetation, including native grasses, wildflowers, and trees with an emphasis on location, distribution, and abundance. • Describe any impacts, positive or negative, observed as a result of agricultural practices (farming and/or grazing); • Monitor vegetation that was planted as part of restoration or remediation work (where applicable) with an emphasis on location, distribution, abundance, and survival rate; • Natural climatic changes (drought, floods, fire, etc.), geologic process, and biologic cycles beyond Midpen control is noted and described, as applicable; and • Stocking rates, herd type, and duration of grazing is noted, where applicable. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program On December 10, 2014 (R-14-34), the Board adopted the Final EIR for the IPMP and approved the IPM Guidance Manual and Policy. The District amended the Program in 2019 (R-19-11). District staff monitor all treatment areas as outlined within the Program documents (https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/integrated-pest-managment) and reports to the Board on an annual basis. The latest report to the Board can be found on the District website at https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Midpen_IPM_Annual_Report_2018.pdf. Midpen monitors site conditions before, during, and after treatment to determine if objectives are being met and if methods need to be revised. This methodology includes the following elements: • Correctly identify the pest and understand its life cycle; • Determine the extent of the problem or infestation; • Evaluate the site conditions; • Establish the tolerance level for control actions; • Utilize the least harmful suite of treatment methods to control the pest at the most vulnerable stages of its life cycle; and • Monitor pest populations and effectiveness of treatment methods. Rare Plant Monitoring Program Rare plant populations and rare habitats are monitored for protection, conservation planning (reduce potential for resource conflicts), land acquisition, and management on Midpen lands following guidelines and protocols from both the California Native Plant Society and California Page 3 of 4 Department of Fish and Wildlife. Depending on the activity at the site, monitoring maybe be “protocol”-level methodology approved by regulatory agencies or “occurrence”-level to be included in the State-managed California Natural Diversity Database. See attachment 2 for an example botanical and rare plant monitoring report. Project Specific Monitoring Mitigation Monitoring Plans (MMPs) or Vegetation Restoration Plans (VRPs) developed by the District or District Consultants, in consultation with permitting agencies, outline required mitigation measures for potential temporary and/or permanent impacts related to a project. These measures often include native plantings to restore ecological functions. The associated mitigation monitoring of installed vegetation and site conditions are reported to permitting agencies for five to ten years, or more, after a project is completed. The monitoring reports document native vegetation and ecological function reestablishment at the sites and any necessary adaptive management measures to ensure all permit conditions and MMP success criteria are achieved. An example mitigation and monitoring report can be found in Attachment 3. Monitoring protocols for individual site monitoring was adopted in 2019 by the District. This protocol uses a multiple-hit, point intercept method to sample the presence/absence of species at sampling points along transects that cross the site to meet the following goals: • Provide accurate and repeatable data for the study while minimizing field collection time; • Efficiently use sampling points to detect degrees of change in vegetation communities that are suitable for management decisions; and • Efficiently sample the sites while retaining low and consistent margins of error across sites. The study design allows for data to be collected and easily compared over multiple years. Multiple-hit data provides a clear picture of change in species percent cover and change in functional guilds over time. These valuable community composition data can be used to guide the evaluation of vegetation communities at each site. The Covid-19 pandemic delayed the implementation of this protocol until spring of 2021. CURRENT PROJECTS UNDERWAY District decisions on resource management are based on the totality of peer-reviewed research and monitoring data and analysis collected during land management activities. Researchers publish new research and review papers on a regular basis, including information on the efficacy, human health and safety, and impacts to the environment. District staff regularly monitor professional literature to remain informed of current scientific findings. Three current projects are underway to refine, update, and/or establish monitoring guidelines and protocols: 1. Science Advisory Panel On January 8, 2020 (R-20-01) the Board selected research questions for study by a Science Advisory Panel (SAP), including a question on monitoring: “How can the District effectively and efficiently monitor changes in priority plant and animal populations at the landscape scale?” The SAP will address this question in two phases, the first of which will be conducted between July and December 2020, and the second of which would be conducted (upon Board approval of funding for the second research phase) between January and June 2021. The first phase of research will seek to refine the District’s monitoring objectives, identify species and communities the District wants to Page 4 of 4 prioritize, and develop a conceptual model for monitoring. In the second phase of research, the SAP would use that information to create a monitoring framework with the following elements: • A clear problem statement that includes the temporal and spatial extent of the question; • Ecological objectives that define desired conditions; • Ecological and statistical justifications for monitoring elements and sampling design; • A prioritized list of taxa that can be effectively and cost-efficiently monitored; and • Recommendations for monitoring protocols, sampling designs, and monitoring intervals. 2. Vegetation Map Updates Traditionally, ecosystem monitoring, conservation, and restoration have been conducted in a piecemeal manner at the local scale without regional landscape context. However, scientifically driven conservation and restoration decisions benefit greatly when they are based on regionally determined goals. Unfortunately, required data sets rarely exist for regionally important ecosystems. On January 23, 2019, the Board authorized the General Manager to enter into a multi-year cooperative agreement with Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy to lead in contracting for the San Mateo County regional vegetation mapping services (R-19-02). On May 27, 2020, the District expanded the project scope to include both Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties (R-20-50). The ultimate goals of the vegetation map update are to integrate the monitoring and assessment of ecological and environmental indicators with management practices. 3. Wildland Fire Resiliency Program On May 13, 2020, the District held a California Environmental Quality Act Scoping Session for the Proposed Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (R-20-42). Included in the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program is a monitoring plan (Chapter 5) with associated protocols (Appendix that establishes baseline conditions for post treatment analysis, including pre- and post-project vegetation, soil, erosion, and water quality monitoring). All draft documents for the proposed program can be found at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. The plan outlines a process to assess the achievement of individual fire resiliency project objectives in reducing fuel loads and identify outcomes in a manner consistent with other land management agencies to allow for comparable analysis. Monitoring of fuel loads allows the District to respond to changing conditions in real-time and adapt management activities. ### ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 VOLLMAR NATURAL LANDS CONSULTING – BERKELEY CALIFORNIA BAY AREA OFFICE 1720 Solano Avenue Berkeley, CA 94707 Phone: (510) 559-9603 Fax: (510) 559-9605 www.vollmarconsulting.com 2019 BOTANICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT JOHNSTON RANCH MIRAMONTES RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, 650/625-6560 Prepared by: Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 1720 Solano Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94707 Contact: Jake Schweitzer 510/559-9603 November 2019 ATTACHMENT 2 VOLLMAR NATURAL LANDS CONSULTING – BERKELEY CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 2.0 TARGETED BOTANICAL RESOURCES ................................... 4 3.0 METHODS ........................................................................... 4 3.1 PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND FIELD PREPARATION ............................................ 4 3.2 FIELD SURVEYS ....................................................................................... 4 3.3 REMOTE MAPPING ................................................................................... 5 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................. 6 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING .................................................................................. 6 4.2 CLIMATE ................................................................................................ 6 4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................ 8 5.0 RESULTS ........................................................................... 11 5.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS .................................................................... 11 5.2 PLANT COMMUNITIES ............................................................................. 13 5.3 POTENTIAL FOR SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS ................................................... 17 6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................... 19 FIGURES AND TABLES: Figure 1. Regional Vicinity Map .................................................................... 2 Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map .................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Wet Season Monthly Temperature and Precipitation ..................... 7 Figure 4. Geology and Soil Units Map ........................................................... 9 Figure 5. Botanical Resources Map ............................................................. 12 Table 1. Characteristics of Soil Units Mapped within the Study Area ............ 8 APPENDICES: Appendix A. Representative Photographs of the Study Area Appendix B. List of All Vascular Plant Taxa Identified within the Study Area. Appendix C. Special-Status Vascular Plant Taxa Documented in the Vicinity of the Study Area Appendix D. Habitat Relevé Forms Appendix E. Habitat Relevé Form Instructions and Documentation ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 1 November 2019 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document presents the methods and results for botanical resource surveys conducted within the Johnston Ranch portion of the Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve (study area or property), located in northwestern San Mateo County, California (Figure 1). The botanical resource surveys were conducted by botanists from Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting (VNLC) on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). The surveys were conducted for the purpose of compiling botanical information for the property, which has recently been acquired and established as an open space preserve. The surveys included focused surveys for special-status botanical resources as well as plot-based habitat relevé surveys to record plant species richness and habitat conditions within predominant habitat types in the study area. The surveys were scheduled to coincide with the early spring, peak spring, and summer botanical seasons for the region, during the blooming periods of special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area. No special-status plant species were observed within the study area, though one sensitive plant community as well as wetland and riparian habitats were documented during the surveys. The Johnston Ranch study area is 418.6 acres, consisting of three separate parcels. The study area is located within the approximately 870-acre Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve (Preserve), which is owned and managed by the District for the purpose of habitat preservation. The study area is located just south of the City of Half Moon Bay, California (population approximately 13,000). The site is mapped on the Half Moon Bay 7½ minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle (Figure 2), within the Miramontes land grant (no township, range, or section designations). The study area is accessible from State Highway 1 by heading east on Higgins Canyon Road, which is just south of developed portions of Half Moon Bay. The property is adjacent to Higgins Canyon Road, and the main entrance to the site is 0.8 mile east of Highway 1 (Figure 2). The study area consists primarily of habitats that may be broadly defined as open grasslands, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and introduced woodlands. There are a couple of cattle stock ponds as well as fairly extensive wetlands within the grasslands. The study area is currently managed as a cattle ranch, and all existing infrastructure is reflective of this land use—unlike other portions of the greater Preserve, there are no trails or associated staging areas or other infrastructure that serve such recreational purposes. In general, the onsite grassland habitats are dominated by introduced annual plants, though there are components of coastal prairie habitats, and the grazing maintains important habitat for wildlife in the area. The District implements grazing as a management tool to sustain the grassland habitat for wildlife and to generally maintain biodiversity on the site. Aside from passive recreation and cattle ranching, land use in the region consists primarily of agriculture and tourism of types typically associated with the coast. The residential development within and adjacent to the City of Half Moon Bay continues to expand at a relatively slow but steady pace, underscoring the value of the study area and Preserve as open space and as a working cattle ranch, thus contributing to the preservation of rural and agricultural landscapes in the region. ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 4 November 2019 2.0 TARGETED BOTANICAL RESOURCES For the purposes of this report, special-status plants include federal and/or California state listed species and species of concern as well as species included within an inventory maintained by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), including taxa of all ranks. Sensitive habitats were also targeted as part of the botanical study. Sensitive plant communities include those designated as such by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), either in the List of California Sensitive Natural Communities (2018) or as alliances classified in the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) (Sawyer et al. 2009). Alliances designated as global or state rank (“G” or “S”, respectively) 1, 2, or 3 in the MCV are considered “rare or threatened” at the global and/or state level, and are therefore considered sensitive. In addition, wetland and riparian habitats are considered sensitive and are regulated by environmental regulatory agencies. 3.0 METHODS 3.1 Preliminary Review and Field Preparation A map and a list of special-status plants documented in the vicinity of the study area were compiled prior to conducting field surveys, in order to identify special-status taxa with potential to occur on the site. The map was compiled from the most recent spatial data within the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), as available from the CDFW (2019). The list was compiled from a nine-quadrangle search using the CNPS’s online “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants” (CNPS 2019). Specifically, the search centered on the Half Moon Bay and included all eight surrounding quadrangles. The list provides information pertaining to the special-status plants, including taxonomic status, preferred habitat, elevation range, blooming period, and a determination of the presence of suitable habitat for each plant in the study area. This information guided the development of the field survey schedule and strategies for those special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area. The list of special-status plant taxa documented in the vicinity is available as Appendix C. The surveys were scheduled to coincide with the blooming periods of all special-status plants for which potentially suitable habitats occur in the study area. In preparation for the habitat relevé surveys, dominant habitat types were identified on a preliminary basis using high-resolution aerial photography and generalized habitat data for the region. Two sources of aerial photography were used (see Section 3.3 below), and the habitat data primarily consisted of Conservation Lands Network vegetation data (2011). Distinctly different habitat types were targeted for field surveys to verify the habitat types and to evaluate as potential locations for relevé plots. 3.2 Field Surveys The botanical field surveys were conducted in the study area by Jake Schweitzer and John Vollmar, both Senior Botanists with VNLC. The 2019 surveys were conducted on March 26, April 24, and July 17. In addition, botanical information was recorded during separate plot relevé surveys on April 27. The rare plant surveys conformed to the CNPS ‘Intuitive Controlled’ method, whereby the entire study area was investigated, though areas with higher potential to support special-status or otherwise unique plants were surveyed with greater intensity. All plant taxa present were recorded according to the lowest taxonomic level (i.e., species, subspecies, or ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 5 November 2019 variety as applicable) and dominant species and general habitat conditions were noted throughout the study area. Project maps and GPS background files depicting the project boundaries, soil unit boundaries, and other features were used to navigate throughout the study area. Field manuals, particularly the “Jepson Manual” (Baldwin et al. 2012), “Flora of the Santa Cruz Mountains of California” (Thomas 1961), and “Plants of the San Francisco Bay Region” (Beidleman and Kozloff 2014) were used to confirm the taxonomy of some plant taxa as necessary. The methods used in the habitat plot relevé surveys correspond to those developed by the CNPS and CDFW. Plot locations were established within representative locations of dominant habitat types occurring within the study area, with an effort the capture the site’s habitat diversity. “Representative” locations were selected based on conditions typically observed within the habitat types, including constituent plants and other biotic conditions as well as abiotic conditions. A total of 12 plots were established throughout the study area. Plot sizes for woody habitats (shrublands and woodlands) were 20x20 meters, and for herbaceous habitats (grasslands and herbaceous wetlands) were 10x10 meters. Data were recorded within a data collection form developed by the CNPS and CDFW for the purpose of habitat assessment and plant community classification. Parameters recorded within the plots include vegetation cover and height for each stratum (i.e., tree, shrub, and herb layers), all plant taxa and the estimated cover value of each, topography and landscape position, soil texture, hydrology, habitat elements (e.g., rock cover, litter cover, etc.), and disturbances such as invasive weeds or soil disturbance. The completed forms for each habitat type are presented in Appendix D. The documentation for the form and associated field methods is provided as Appendix E. Within each habitat type, the most prevalent plant species from each stratum (tree, shrub/sapling/vine, and herb) were recorded in order of dominance into professional GPS units (Trimble GeoXH 6000 units) and iPads, with an effort to classify the habitat types according to the CNPS classification system (2001). The locations and population ranges of invasive plants were also recorded with GPS units on an opportunistic basis, in order to identify areas of potential management needs. The documentation of invasive plants focused on highly invasive plant species and species with potential to cause significant detrimental impacts to natural habitats within the Preserve. Representative digital photographs were taken of onsite plant communities and of general habitat conditions (Appendix A). 3.3 Remote Mapping Subsequent to completing the field surveys, habitat GPS data mapped within the study area (as described above) were overlaid onto aerial photography and topographic data using ArcGIS software. The GPS data and digital photos recorded during the field surveys were used to accurately classify habitat types and boundaries with respect to their signatures on the air photos. Two sets of air photos from two different timeframes were used in the analysis, including Digital Globe 0.5-meter resolution color photography from August of 2017, and National Aerial Imagery Program (NAIP) 0.6-meter resolution color infrared (CIR) photography from June of 2016. Each photo set provided distinct advantages. Since the Digital Globe imagery is provided via ArcGIS software, it was the primary imagery used to digitize habitat polygons. The NAIP imagery allows for analysis of vegetation cover using the infrared spectral value. Using the CIR imagery, the cover and type of vegetation is easier to discern. A minimum mapping unit (MMU) ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 6 November 2019 of approximately 0.25 acre was employed in the habitat analysis, based on the confidence level of field data as well as the quality of the available aerial imagery for the study area. The MMU was reduced for stock ponds, one of which is below 0.25 acre. In order to ensure consistency in the use of aerial imagery and digitized lines, the habitat boundaries were digitized at a scale of 1:1,200. As each newly identified feature was digitized, the polygon was coded according to habitat type and level of confidence. The confidence level assigned is “High” or “Moderate” based on characteristics of the aerial photography and similarity of the photography to habitat types confirmed in the field. As noted above, the habitat type coding corresponds to the CNPS habitat type classification (2001). 4.0 Environmental Setting 4.1 Regional Setting The study area encompasses the transition from flat coastal terrace to the lower western foothills of the northern Santa Cruz Mountains, just south of Half Moon Bay, California. The area is mapped along the boundary of the Jepson Manual’s Central Coast (CCo) and San Francisco Bay Area (SnFrB) floristic subregions (Baldwin et al. 2012). The CCo Subregion extends from Bodega Bay (Sonoma County) in the north to Point Conception (Santa Barbara County) in the south. It includes coastal vegetation, with salt marshes and coastal prairie in the northern portion and coastal sage scrub in the southern portion. The SnFrB Subregion is defined as encompassing a notable diversity of vegetation types, from very wet redwood forest to dry oak/pine woodland and chaparral (ibid). The study area is only one mile from Half Moon Bay and the Pacific Ocean, and is on the windward side of the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Therefore, it is subject to relatively high moisture levels, in the form of both precipitation and fog, as well as salt spray, and this is reflected in the plant communities. The most prevalent plant communities are grassland and coastal scrub, along with tree species that thrive in high levels of moisture and are tolerant of salt spray. Absent from the study area are xeric plant communities such as chaparral and interior oak woodlands, as well as communities associated with the immediate coast, such as coastal strand, coastal bluff scrub, and salt marsh. Elevation within the study area ranges from approximately 83 to 710 feet (25 to 216 meters) above sea level (USGS 1997), with elevation increasing from northwest to the northeast (Figure 2). Elevation continues to increase eastward up to approximately 2,000 feet at the crest of the northern Santa Cruz Mountains, a little over three miles from the study area. Though there are north-south trending ridges and valleys between the crest and the Pacific Ocean, elevation generally decreases from the crest toward the coast. Several prominent drainages conduct water from the hill slopes westward toward the Pacific Ocean, and have carved out valleys along their descent. The study area is within the Arroyo Leon Watershed (USGS 2013). Several streams within the study area flow southwestward into Arroyo Leon, which flows north into Pilarcitos Creek, which in turn flows west and discharges into Half Moon Bay. 4.2 Climate The climate of the study area and surrounding vicinity is characterized by cool, wet winters and warm, mostly rainless summers as well as high inter- and intra-annual variability in precipitation. The study area is within the “Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region” of the Army ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 7 November 2019 Figure 3. Wet Season Monthly Temperature and Precipitation Source: PRISM Climate Data (2019). ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 8 November 2019 Corps of Engineers climate zones (ACOE 2010), which may be defined for floristic analyses as “coastal Mediterranean.” On average, the area receives 29.6 inches of precipitation (Figure 3) (PRISM 2019). However, because the study area is significantly influenced by coastal maritime weather patterns, considerable moisture is available as fog through the “dry” summer season. In turn, the moisture serves to moderate temperatures, maintaining a relatively cool summer temperature with minimal fluctuations. The average annual temperature in the area (from 1981 to 2010) is 53.8 degrees, and average temperatures each month range from a low of 50.7 degrees Fahrenheit in January to a high of 61.8 degrees in September (Figure 3). The highest average monthly temperature is in September, as summertime fog serves to suppress temperatures such that June, July, and August experience average temperatures of only 58.5, 61.1, and 61.3 degrees, respectively (ibid). As shown in Figure 3 above, the study area experienced slightly higher than average rainfall during the 2018-2019 wet season, with precipitation amounting to 29.9 inches compared to a seasonal average of 28.8—104 percent of normal. Moreover, the precipitation levels were quite irregular from month to month during the wet season, with October, December, and April experiencing much less than average precipitation (5%, 42%, and 63% of normal, respectively), but all other months except January (which was only slightly lower than normal) experiencing greater than average during the timeframe. February experienced 167 percent of average precipitation. Despite the erratic precipitation patterns, average temperatures during the same timeframe were identical to the mean, at least as averaged over the wet season (100% of normal). It is expected that the 2018-2019 wet season, which is also the primary growing season for the region, provided fairly normal to slightly above average conditions for plant growth and persistence. Based on observations in the field, the high precipitation levels occurring in late winter/early spring (i.e., in February), and then again in late spring (May), both delayed and extended the blooming period for many plant species. 4.3 Geology and Soils Geology Four geologic formations are mapped in the study area, including Purisima formation, undividuated, late Pleistocene alluvium, Pleistocene marine terrace deposits, and medium- grained Holocene alluvium (Figure 4). All of these are relatively recent, primarily Pleistocene to Holocene units (i.e., several million to less than 10,000 years old) of sedimentary rocks (USGS 1998). The sediments have been uplifted by tectonic activity, then more recently incised by streams. Most of the sediments are originally derived from materials deposited in shallow marine environments resulting from turbidity currents (the marine equivalent of landslides, possibly caused by earthquakes) from the tectonic plate edges. However, for the most part, the materials are continental in origin. The majority of the site is mapped as Purisima formation, which is described as a light-colored, fossil-rich formation that is generally subject to gullying and other forms of erosion (Sloan 2006). Aside from problems associated with erosion, the mostly continental materials tend to provide relatively abundant nutrients that are necessary for plant growth, especially as compared to serpentinite and other materials from deeper within the earth. ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 10 November 2019 Soil Units Excluding soil units that comprise less than one percent of the study area, 10 soil units are mapped within the area. The majority of the site (57.1%) is mapped as either Tierra loam or Colma sandy loam, as shown on Figure 4. Both of these are acidic soils derived from sedimentary materials with high loam contents and moderate organic contents (USDA 2019). Table 1 below presents characteristics of the soil units that are significant for botanical resources. Note that all of the remaining units are also predominantly forms of loam and also derived from sedimentary materials. As the table indicates, the soil units are also generally similar in other parameters—with the exception of Botella clay loam, organic matter is low-to- moderate, and pH values are generally moderately acidic to neutral. Given this available information, all of the units may be considered moderately fertile. Two units, Soquel loam and Botella clay loam, are considered to be prime farmland soil if irrigated. Most of the soils sampled as part of data collection for the plot relevés featured at least some amount of silt and clay, along with the more dominant loam. Other than small amounts of gravel, rocks of any size are uncommon in the study area. With the exception of the riparian corridors and perhaps some of the low-lying areas with clay soils, coastal scrub is the presumed climax plant community—in the absence of disturbances such as fire and grazing, upland habitats would likely become shrublands. One aspect of the soils that is likely to play a role in the trends of plant cover is the high susceptibility of the soils to erosion. The Purisima formation soils along the hill slopes are very well drained to excessively well drained, and this has contributed to topographic diversity, including the formation of streams and extensive gullying. The streams primarily support plant communities that are tolerant—or even dependent on—soil disturbance. In addition, a number of weedy plant species are quick to colonize eroded habitats, as is evident in stands of pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata) within gullies. Figure 5 depicts mapped plant communities within the study area, including occurrences of invasive weeds. The study area plant communities are described in Section 5.2 below. TABLE 1. Characteristics of Soil Units Mapped within the Study Area Soil Unit Name and Percent of Study Area1 Parent Material Surface Texture2 pH2 Organic Matter2 Tierra loam (31.3%) Alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Loam 5.6, 5.83 0.48- 1.67%3 Colma sandy loam (25.8%) Marine deposits Sandy loam 6.1 0.63% Tierra clay loam (9.7%) Alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Clay loam 5.6 0.56% Colma loam (9.6%) Marine deposits Loam 6.1 2.15% Gullied land (6.7%) Alluvium variable variable variable Gazos-Lobitos silt loams (5.2%) Shale Silt loam 6.6 1.85% Soquel loam (3.9%) Alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Loam 7.0 2.00% Watsonville loam (3.2%) Alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Loam 5.7 1.01% Botella clay loam (2.5%) Alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Clay loam 6.7 4.00% Gazos and Lobitos soils (1.3%) Shale Silt loam 6.7 1.61% Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, SoilWeb website, 2019. Excludes slope descriptors. 1. The remaining 0.8% of the site consists of four soil units that comprise a small fraction of one percent. 2. Dominant condition. Values for surface texture, pH and organic matter correspond to the top 24 inches. 3. Depending upon erosive value of unit. ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 11 November 2019 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Summary of Key Findings A total of 198 plant taxa were identified within the 418.6-acre study area during the 2019 field surveys, none of which are designated as special-status or otherwise considered rare (Appendix B). The total number of plant taxa is neither particularly high nor low for the size of the study area, but is approximately what would be expected. Of all plant taxa identified within the study area, 116 (59%) are native to California, while 82 (41%) are introduced and naturalized in the state. Two of the native taxa are native to California, but are introduced within the study area and surrounding vicinity, and both of these are considered invasive by the local chapter of the CNPS. These are Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) and Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa). Among the introduced plant species, 38 (19% of all taxa) are considered invasive by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC 2019), including four taxa that are rated as “High,” 19 that are rated as “Moderate,” and 15 that are rated as “Limited.” A majority of the introduced and invasive plant species occur within the grasslands and more open Coastal Scrub habitats. Among the invasive species, the four species rated as High are of primary concern from a management perspective: Cape ivy (Delairea odorata), pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and French broom (Genista monspessulana). The Moderate rated cotoneaster (Cotoneaster franchetii) is fairly widespread and appears to be spreading, so also should be prioritized for management. Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) is only rated as Limited, but is considered to be Moderate by the District in the Central Coast region. The species has potential to spread well beyond the current few stands, and should likewise be considered a management priority, as it has the potential to severely alter the ecology of colonized areas, and also represents a serious fire hazard. Monterey pine is invasive and also problematic in terms of ecological conditions, but is somewhat less disruptive and prone to contribute to problems with wildfire. Plant communities documented within the study area include the following, in order of extent: Coastal Scrub, Valley and Foothill Grassland, Introduced Woodland, and Riparian Woodland (see Figure 5). In addition, two large stock ponds were mapped on the figure, which, despite being small as mapped habitats go, are quite distinct from other habitats and represent an important habitat type. With the exception of Introduced Woodland and the ponds, these classes are included in the system used by the CNPS to describe habitat types for special-status plant taxa (see Appendix C). The Introduced Woodland type is applied to stands of introduced tree species within the study area, consisting primarily of Monterey pine and blue gum. Monterey pine is technically considered a rare plant species (CRPR 1B.2), but only within its historical native habitat, in coastal Monterey County. Blue gum is native to Australia, where it is one among roughly 750 to 800 Eucalyptus species. Both of these trees were brought to northern California and widely planted along coastal hill slopes, and continue to expand their range at the expense of native grassland and shrubland habitats. Among the larger stands of Coastal Scrub are localized stands of oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor) that form Ocean Spray Brush, which is considered a rare and threatened plant community in the MCV. Representative photographs of each habitat are included in Appendix A. Appendix B presents a list of all vascular plant taxa identified within the study area during the 2019 field surveys, and provides information pertaining to each plant’s status with respect to origin, Cal-IPC invasive ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 13 November 2019 rank, and other taxonomic information. Habitat relevé plots were established in all of the major habitat types, as well as within seasonal wetland habitat within grassland habitat. The habitat relevé forms provide detailed ecological information pertaining to the plots and habitat types. The completed plot forms are included as Appendix D. 5.2 Plant Communities Coastal Scrub Coastal Scrub is the most widespread plant community in the study area (Figure 5), covering 171.3 acres, or 41 percent of the property. The community is best developed along steep slopes, but is also present along ridge tops and a few areas along the toes of the slopes. The encroachment of scrub into grassland is generally kept in check by cattle grazing and associated trampling, but as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) is highly competitive in such coastal habitats and grows very rapidly, the species is difficult to fully contain without risks of over-grazing. Aside from coyote brush, common shrub and vine species observed in this plant community include California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), seaside woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum staechadifolium), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), and blood currant (Ribes sanguineum). The invasive cotoneaster is fairly widespread along the northern-central portion of the study area, but otherwise occurs only as scattered individuals. The highly invasive French broom is present on the site, but at the time of the surveys was limited to a few individuals along the southern-central portion of the study area, within an eroded gully. Most of the onsite Coastal Scrub would be classified in the MCV as Coyote Brush Scrub, a very common habitat type that is not threatened. Many of the Coastal Scrub stands feature emergent Monterey pines, and historical aerial photography (1991, from GoogleEarth software) suggests that the larger stands of pine have replaced what was once mostly scrub habitat. As much of the Coastal Scrub is relatively open, the herbaceous layer is fairly well developed and diverse, with the most common species consisting of Pacific blacksnakeroot (Sanicula crassicaulis), robust vervain (Verbena lasiostachys), common bedstraw (Galium aparine), goldback fern (Pentagramma triangularis), rough hedgenettle (Stachys rigida), yerba buena (Clinopodium douglasii), and scarlet pimpernel (Lysimachia arvensis). Aside from scarlet pimpernel, all of these most dominant species from the shrub and herb strata are native, though invasive species are present in portions of the shrublands, largely as a result of incursions of cattle into the shrubs. There are fairly wide cattle trails that cut through the habitat, and the soils are highly disturbed by deep hoof prints where the clay content is high. These areas have been colonized by invasive grasses such as brome fescue and Italian ryegrass, as well as invasive forbs such as bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). The highly invasive Cape ivy forms its largest stands within openings of Coastal Scrub (Figure 5). The most open stands of Costal Scrub are largely indistinguishable from the Valley and Foothill Grassland plant community, as described below. No special-status plants were observed in the mapped Coastal Scrub, though the habitat has the potential to support special-status plants. Included within the greater Coastal Scrub habitat were stands of oceanspray that form Ocean Spray Brush. This is a plant community classified in the MCV that has a rarity rank of S3, G4, and thus is considered sensitive by the CNPS and CDFW. A relevé plot was established in one stand of the community, as Plot 11 as included in Appendix D. As shown on the relevé form, this community includes many of the same plant species as that which is dominated by coyote brush, though there are species that appeared to be more prevalent in this habitat, which appeared ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 14 November 2019 to be a little more mesic. These include Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and little western bitter cress (Cardamine oligosperma). Detailed habitat information pertaining to Coastal Scrub is presented in the relevé plot forms presented in Appendix D, plots 4, 10, and 11 (see also Figure 5 for locations). As the forms indicate, an average of 25 plant taxa was recorded within the three 20x20 meter plots. The soil texture identified in the three plots is either “moderately fine silty clay loam” (MFSL) or “medium silt” (MESI) (see Appendix E, last page, for the soil key used). Litter was moderately high, primarily in the form of shrub branches and leaves, and woodrat nests constructed of such plant material were noted throughout much of the habitat (not within the plots). Aside from plant basal stems and litter, most of the ground cover was otherwise limited to a small amount of gravel—no cobbles, stones, or boulders were present within the plots. Additional habitat information is documented within the three relevé forms. Valley and Foothills Grassland Encompassing 166.7 acres, Valley and Foothill Grassland is nearly as widespread as Coastal Scrub in the study area, accounting for 40 percent of the site (Figure 5). The community is distributed throughout the study area, but is most prevalent along ridge tops and flatter portions, where the site encompasses coastal terrace topography. It is most dominant where soils are thick and rich. In addition, smaller areas of grassland that are below the MMU are present within the other plant communities, but generally consist of the same plant species. The habitats are maintained as grasslands primarily by means of grazing, especially along the hill slopes, as many such areas would soon revert to shrublands in the absence of the grazing and trampling by livestock. As noted previously, this is a deliberate habitat management strategy employed by the District to maintain open landscape as well as important habitat for a variety of plant and animal species: for example, to promote grassland-associated wildflowers and to provide upland refugia for endangered amphibians. As a result, the dominant plant species are those that can withstand grazing and trampling, primarily grasses and low-growing forbs. Dominant species identified in the habitat include soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (B. diandrus), brome fescue (Festuca bromoides), wild oats (Avena spp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), birds-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), and a variety of clovers (Trifolium spp.). Two attractive former cultivars that are widespread on the site are rosy sandcrocus (Romulea rosea) and pale flax (Linum bienne). Though most species in this habitat are more associated with Valley and Foothill Grassland, the site is notably mesic and within a transition zone with Coastal Prairie habitats. Therefore, there are a number of widely occurring species that are associated with Coastal Prairie and moist grasslands in general, to the extent that special- status plants associated with Coastal Prairie and “mesic” microhabitats have some potential, albeit limited, to occur in the study area. Such species include common velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), rush species (Juncus effusus and J. patens), sun cup (Taraxia ovata), California oat grass (Danthonia californica), and yellow glandweed (Parentucellia viscosa). Stands of native wildflowers were relatively sparse and small. Most of the grasslands were highly patchy, forming a complex mosaic of potential MCV habitat types, all of which are relatively common, with the exception of small stands of California oat grass and other native species, which were too small to qualify as mappable stands. ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 15 November 2019 Also noted during the botanical surveys were several springs and seeps, as well as localized areas where depressions combine with high clay content in the soils to form seasonal wetlands. These features are not mapped in this report because they represent small microhabitats within other habitats, primarily grasslands. The locations of larger wetlands are indicated by labels on Figure 5. The most common plant species documented within the wetlands include common velvet grass and pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium). Areas of more prolonged inundation featured pale spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), seep monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus), and American brooklime (Veronica americana), among other hydrophytes. As suggested above, many of these also occurred more sporadically throughout the grasslands. No special-status plants were documented within the onsite Valley and Foothill Grassland habitat or the more localized wetland habitats. It should be noticed that the intensity of grazing during the timeframe of the botanical surveys complicated the identification of plants in some areas as only the bases of the plants were visible. Based on habitat conditions, the habitat provides low-to-moderate potential to support special-status plants. Detailed habitat information pertaining to Valley and Foothill Grassland is presented in relevé plot forms 3 and 5 (see also Figure 5). As the forms indicate, an average of 17 plant taxa were recorded within the three 20x20 meter plots, again with the caveat of intensive grazing throughout most of the habitat. The soil texture identified in the two plots is “moderately fine clay loam” (MFCL) or MFSL. Litter was relatively high for grasslands, though thatch was rather low. No cover types aside from plant basal stems, litter, and fine soil material were observed in the plots. Additional habitat information is documented within the two relevé forms. Introduced Woodland Scattered throughout the study area, particularly the upper hill slopes, is woodland comprised primarily of exotic tree species. Accounting for 47.5 acres, this habitat covers 11 percent of the study area. As indicated above, these areas are consist primarily of Monterey pine and blue gum, with Monterey pine forming a majority of woodland stands. All areas not labeled as “blue gum” on Figure 5 are stands of Monterey pine. While these woodlands do provide some value as wildlife habitat, especially for nesting raptors and as cover for a variety of other animals, they are known to detrimentally alter habitat conditions and increase the risk of wildfire. Both tree species produce a high cover and depth of litter, and blue gum is infamous for its flammability and papery bark, which can transmit fire long distances from a burning tree. Often the understories below these tree species are relatively devoid of understory species, but within the study area they are fairly diverse. This is likely due at least in part to the recently development of the woodlands—historical aerial photography shows that, as recently as the early 1990s, only a few trees of each species were present within the study area, and most areas previously consisted of shrublands. Shrubs and vines are still fairly common, though primarily in the form of shade-tolerant species. The most common species observed are California blackberry, poison oak, oceanspray, and blood currant. The herbaceous understory likewise consisted of shade- tolerant species that are otherwise associated within Coastal Scrub, such as common bedstraw, yerba buena, Pacific blacksnakeroot, and rough hedgenettle. No special-status plants were observed in these habitats in the study area, and they are generally not expected given that they are exotic to the region. ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 16 November 2019 Detailed habitat information for the Introduced Woodland is presented in plot forms 1, 8, and 12 (Figure 5). A total of 17 plant taxa were identified within the blue gum plot (Plot 1), and an average of 25 taxa was identified within the two Monterey pine plots (Plots 8 and 12). The soil texture identified in Plot 1 is medium silt loam (MESIL), and MESI and MFSL within Plots 8 and 12 (respectively). Litter was generally high—as high as 90 and 80 percent in Plots 1 and 8 (respectively), consisting primarily of leaves/needles. Litter and fine soils constituted the vast majority of ground cover, along with a small percentage of plant stems. Riparian Woodland Riparian Woodland occurs along Arroyo Leon as well as all of the major onsite seasonal tributaries of that stream (Figure 5). The cumulative area of the habitat is 31.4 acres, amounting to 7.5 percent of the study area. Although most of the habitat was found to consist of a fairly high diversity of plant species, and with a majority of native species, there was significant variability based on the presence and size of the floodplain as well as relative disturbance from erosion and cattle encroachment. Stretches with a well-developed floodplain along lower reaches, and areas of low disturbance, primarily along the headwaters, featured the highest diversity of plants. As can be seen in Appendix D (see also Figure 5) Plot 9 encompassed 50 plant taxa, which is over one-quarter of all taxa identified in the study area. This 20x20 meter plot encompasses a large floodplain as well as the stream channel. There is some cattle disturbance, but only along a rather narrow trail (which did feature a higher percentage of introduced, weedy plants). In contrast, Plot 2 is along a minor section of stream with a limited floodplain, and was notably disturbed by cattle grazing, trampling, and loafing. Only 16 plant taxa were identified in this plot. All of the Riparian Woodland habitats are dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), though red willow (S. laevigata) is also present, along with a few other trees, including Monterey pine along the edges. Under the MCV classification, the plant community would qualify as Arroyo Willow Thickets, an S4, G4 habitat type (i.e., relatively common and not threatened). The composition of the shrub/vine and herb strata varied based on the amount of available sunlight, though as a woodland (as opposed to a forest), most of this habitat featured at least stippled sunlight, and most of the trees are deciduous, so more light is available during the winter and early spring seasons. Common shrub and vine species identified include coast twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), California blackberry, thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), poison oak, red elderberry, California wax myrtle (Morella californica). The herb stratum was found to be quite diverse as a whole, with more sunny habitats consisting of man- root species (Marah sp.), rushes, common velvet grass, bull thistle and a variety of other weedy species. Cape ivy was also found along more sunny stretches of riparian woodland. More shaded and/or moist habitats consisted of a higher proportion of native herbs, such as wood strawberry (Fragaria vesca), hedgenettle (Stachys spp.), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), and a variety of fern species. Detailed habitat information for the Riparian Woodland is presented in plot forms 2 and 9 (Figure 5). An average of 33 plant taxa were identified within the two plots (see discussion above). The soil textures identified are MFCL for Plot 2 and MFSL in Plot 9. Litter was high— as high as 60 percent in Plot 9, consisting primarily of leaves and branches. Water was present within the channel, amounting to one and three percent within Plots 2 and 9, respectively. The remaining surface cover was primarily plant basal stems and fine soils. ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 17 November 2019 Pond Two large constructed cattle stock ponds are present within the southern central portion of the study area. The ponds are adjacent to each other and cumulatively amount to 0.8 acre. Though the ponds form a minor component of the overall habitat in the study area, they form a distinct and important habitat for both special-status plants and animals as well as common plants and animals. Both ponds are formed by constructed earthen berms, and rain-fed and overland flow hydrology is augmented by water from the nearby stream, in the form of a large diversion in the southern pond and, presumably, groundwater in both. The ponds appeared to be at least one to several feet deep during the spring and summer surveys, and featured extensive open water as well as emergent marsh vegetation. Common plant species documented within and surrounding the ponds include pale spikerush, California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), clustered dock (Rumex conglomeratus), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), bog rush (Juncus hesperius), and pennyroyal. Long-leaved pondweed (Potamogeton nodosus) was present as floating aquatic vegetation throughout the ponds. These species are supported by soils that are saturated at least much of the year, if not all year long in typical years. Portions of the habitat may be considered “Marsh” habitat, which is classified by the CNPS as “Marshes and Swamps.” The surrounding uplands featured a mix of both upland and wetland-associated plants, such as rushes, Italian rye grass, bull mallow (Malva nicaeensis), and a number of other weedy herbs. No relevé plots were established in the area. 5.3 Potential for Special-Status Plants The study area encompasses habitat types that are known to support numerous special-status plants in the vicinity of the site. Based on typical micro-habitat conditions, elevation ranges, and distribution patterns of the taxa, 22 plant taxa have been identified as having some potential to occur on the site, as indicated by shading on Appendix C. None of these were observed during the 2019 protocol-level botanical surveys or the vegetation plot sampling. The study area is moderately sized (418.6 acres) and encompasses three distinct CNPS habitat types as well as non-native woodlands, stock ponds with marsh vegetation, and a number of localized seasonal wetland habitats. The study area habitats support a modest number of plant taxa (198 taxa), a majority of which are native. However, many of the habitats feature at least a moderate level of disturbance from intensive cattle use and/or from invasive plants. In addition, unique microhabitats that tend to support many of the special-status plants known from the vicinity are fairly limited in the study area. There are no specialized soils such as serpentine, heavy clay, or sand, and no substantial rock outcroppings. Accounting for micro-habitat and elevation range, Valley and Foothill Grassland habitat in the vicinity is known to support four special-status plants, and Coastal Prairie supports nine. These are shaded in Appendix C because there is some potential for them to occur in the study area, but the onsite habitats were found to support primarily introduced species, including many invasive species. The more intact and mesic Coastal Scrub is the most likely habitat type to support special-status plants on the site—there are 12 such taxa known from Coastal Scrub in the vicinity that fall with the elevation range of the study area and are associated with microhabitats on the site. The ponds and localized seasonal wetland habitats provide potential for five special-status plants that are known from Marshes and Swamps and/or Meadows and Seeps, though in addition to being limited in area, these habitats are particularly disturbed by cattle grazing and trampling. Both habitats are dominated by highly competitive plant species that are indicative of very generalized, common ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 18 November 2019 habitat conditions with respect to soils, hydrology and other factors. The type of Riparian Woodland habitat that occurs in the study area is known to support three special-status taxa, but is similar in these respects. The portions of this habitat most likely to support special-status plants are the areas with broader floodplains and the less disturbed headwater areas. A number of relatively uncommon plants (but not officially rare at the state or local levels) were identified in the latter habitat type. Overall, the site provides low-to-moderate potential to support special- status plants, but no such plants were observed during the multiple rounds of botanical surveys conducted in 2019. ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 19 November 2019 6.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, Bruce, Douglas H. Goldman, David J. Keil, Robert Patterson, and Thomas J. Rosatti. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Beidleman, Linda H. and Eugene N. Kozloff. 2014. Plants of the San Francisco Bay Region, Third Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California Calflora Website. 2019. Plant database website available (as of 10/2019) at: http://www.calflora.org/species/index.html California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (March updates). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2019. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. Website available (as of 10/2019) at: http://www.cal- ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php#inventory California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Sensitive Natural Communities List. Available online (as of 10/2019) at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. California Sensitive Natural Communities List. Available online (as of 10/2019) at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2019. CNPS’s Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (eighth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website available (as of 10/2019) at: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants – 7th Edition Interface. Habitat Types Page. Available online (as of 10/2019) at: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi/Html?item=56-59.htm Conservation Lands Network (CLN). 2011. Vegetation GIS Data, based largely on California Department of Forestry CalVeg data. CLN data is available online (as of 11/2019) at: https://www.bayarealands.org/maps-data/ Helley, E.J. and R.W. Graymer. 1997. Quaternary Geology of Alameda County, and Parts of Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Counties, California: A Digital Database. USGS Open File Report 97-97. Jepson Flora Project (eds.) (Jepson eFlora). 2019. The Jepson Herbarium. Available online (as of 11/2019) at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report 20 November 2019 PRISM Climate Group (PRISM). 2019. Data from PRISM website. Oregon State University, Corvallis. Website available (as of 10/2019) at: http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/ Sawyer, John O., Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie M. Evans. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sloan, Doris. 2006. Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Press. Thomas, John Hunter. 1961. Flora of the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. Stanford University Press. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2019. Web Soil Survey Website. Available (as of 10/2019) at: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. Watershed Boundary GIS Dataset. Available (as of 11/2019) at: https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national- hydrography/watershed-boundary-dataset?qt-science_support_page_related_con=4#qt- science_support_page_related_con U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. The Purisima Formation and Related Rocks (Upper Miocene – Pliocene), Grater San Francisco Bay Area, Central California. Open-File Report 98-594. By Charles L. Powell, II. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. Ten-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 1:24,000 quadrangles. ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX A: Representative Photographs of the Study Area (March, April, and July, 2019) ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX A. Representative Photographs of the Study Area Blue Gum Introduced Woodland at Relevé Plot 1 Northeastern Portion of the Study Area Riparian Woodland at Relevé Plot 2 Northern-Central Portion of the Study Area ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX A. Representative Photographs of the Study Area Valley and Foothill Grassland at Relevé Plot 3 Northern-Central Portion of the Study Area Coastal Scrub at Relevé Plot 4 Northwestern Portion of the Study Area ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX A. Representative Photographs of the Study Area Mesic Grassland/Seasonal Wetland at Relevé Plot 6 Northwestern Portion of the Study Area Mesic Grassland/Seasonal Wetland at Relevé Plot 7 Northwestern Portion of the Study Area ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX A. Representative Photographs of the Study Area Monterey Pine Introduced Woodland at Relevé Plot 8 Central Portion of the Study Area Riparian Woodland at Relevé Plot 9 Northern-Central Portion of the Study Area ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX A. Representative Photographs of the Study Area Coastal Scrub at Relevé Plot 10 Central-Eastern Portion of the Study Area Ocean Spray Brush Form of Coastal Scrub (MCV S3 G4) at Relevé Plot 11 Central-Eastern Portion of the Study Area ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX A. Representative Photographs of the Study Area Monterey Pine Introduced Woodland at Relevé Plot 12 Central Portion of the Study Area Pond with Emergent Marsh Southern-Central Portion of the Study Area ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX A. Representative Photographs of the Study Area Columbine Wildflowers in Riparian Woodland (stream headwaters) Eastern Portion of the Study Area Close-up of Disturbed Seasonal Habitat Southern-Central Portion of the Study Area ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX B: List of All Vascular Plant Taxa Identified within the Study Area, March, April, and July, 2019 ATTACHMENT 2 APPENDIX B. Vascular Plants Identified within Johnston Ranch Portion of Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve, 2019. Compiled by Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Origin Cal-IPC Rank1 Duration Habit Pct Cover2 Adoxaceae (Muskroot Family) Sambucus racemosa var. racemosa Red Elderberry Native N/A Perennial Tree, Shrub 1-5 Agavaceae (Century-plant Family) Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum Wavyleaf Soap Plant Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 6-10 Anacardiaceae (Sumac Family) Toxicodendron diversilobum Western Poison Oak Native N/A Perennial Shrub, Vine 6-10 Apiaceae (Carrot Family) Angelica tomentosa Woolly Angelica Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Apiaceae (Carrot Family) Conium maculatum Poison-Hemlock Naturalized Moderate Biennial Forb/herb 1-5 Apiaceae (Carrot Family) Foeniculum vulgare Fennel Naturalized High Biennial, Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Apiaceae (Carrot Family) Heracleum maximum Cow Parsnip Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Apiaceae (Carrot Family) Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific Blacksnakeroot Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Araceae (Arum Family) Lemna minor Common Duckweed Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb (aquatic) 1-5 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Anthemis cotula Mayweed Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Artemisia californica California Sagebrush Native N/A Perennial Shrub 1-5 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea Coyote Brush Native N/A Perennial Shrub 26-50 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Carduus pycnocephalus ssp. pycnocephalus Italian Thistle Naturalized Moderate Annual Forb/herb 1-5 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Cirsium brevistylum Clustered Thistle Native N/A Annual, Biennial, Perennial Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle Naturalized Moderate Biennial Forb/herb <1 ATTACHMENT 2 Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Origin Cal-IPC Rank1 Duration Habit Pct Cover2 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Cotula coronopifolia Brass-Buttons Naturalized Limited Perennial Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Crepis vesicaria ssp. taraxacifolia Beaked Hawksbeard Naturalized N/A Annual, Biennial Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Delairea odorata Cape-Ivy Naturalized High Perennial Forb/herb, Vine 26-50 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Eriophyllum staechadifolium Seaside Woolly Sunflower Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Gamochaeta ustulata Featherweed Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Grindelia stricta var. platyphylla Oregon Gumweed Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Helenium puberulum Rosilla Native N/A Annual, Perennial Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Helminthotheca echioides Bristly Ox-Tongue Naturalized Limited Annual, Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Hypochaeris glabra Smooth Cat's-Ear Naturalized Limited Annual Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Hypochaeris radicata Rough Cat's-Ear Naturalized Moderate Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Lactuca virosa Bitter Lettuce Naturalized N/A Annual, Biennial Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Leucanthemum vulgare Ox-Eye Daisy Naturalized Moderate Perennial Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Logfia gallica Daggerleaf Cottonrose Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Madia sativa Coast Tarweed Native N/A Annual Forb/herb 1-5 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Matricaria discoidea Pineapple Weed Native N/A Annual Forb/herb 1-5 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Pseudognaphalium beneolens Cudweed Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Pseudognaphalium californicum Ladies' Tobacco Native N/A Annual, Biennial Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Psilocarphus tenellus Slender Woolly-Marbles Native N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Senecio vulgaris Common Groundsel Naturalized N/A Annual, Biennial Forb/herb <1 ATTACHMENT 2 Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Origin Cal-IPC Rank1 Duration Habit Pct Cover2 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Silybum marianum Milk Thistle Naturalized Limited Annual, Biennial Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Symphyotrichum sp. (NF- unconfirmed) California Aster Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb, Subshrub 1-5 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Sonchus asper ssp. asper Prickly Sow Thistle Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Asteraceae (Aster Family) Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow Thistle Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb 1-5 Azollaceae (Azolla Family) Azolla filiculoides Pacific Mosquitofern Native N/A Annual Forb/herb (aquatic) 1-5 Blechnaceae (Chain Fern Family) Woodwardia fimbriata Giant Chain Fern Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Boraginaceae (Borage Family) Myosotis discolor Yellow and Blue Forget-me-not Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) Barbarea orthoceras American Yellowrocket Native N/A Biennial, Perennial Forb/herb <1 Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) Barbarea vulgaris Yellow Rocket Naturalized N/A Biennial Forb/herb <1 Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's Purse Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb 1-5 Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) Cardamine californica Milk Maids Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) Cardamine oligosperma Little Western Bittercress Native N/A Annual, Biennial, Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean Mustard Naturalized Moderate Annual, Biennial, Perennial Forb/herb <1 Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) Lepidium strictum Upright Pepperweed Native N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) Nasturtium officinale Water Cress Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) Rorippa palustris ssp. palustris Bog Yellowcress Native N/A Annual, Perennial Forb/herb <1 Caprifoliaceae (Honeysuckle Family) Lonicera involucrata var. ledebourii Coast Twinberry Native N/A Perennial Shrub 6-10 Caryophyllaceae (Pink Family) Cerastium glomeratum Sticky Mouse-Ear Chickweed Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 ATTACHMENT 2 Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Origin Cal-IPC Rank1 Duration Habit Pct Cover2 Caryophyllaceae (Pink Family) Stellaria media Common Chickweed Naturalized N/A Annual, Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Convolvulaceae (Morning-glory Family) Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed Naturalized N/A Perennial Vine, Forb/herb 1-5 Cucurbitaceae (Cucumber Family) Marah fabacea California Man-Root Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb/vi ne <1 Cucurbitaceae (Cucumber Family) Marah oregana Coast Man-Root Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb/vi ne 1-5 Cupressaceae (Cypress Family) Hesperocyparis macrocarpa* Monterey Cypress* Native Limited Perennial Tree <1 Juncaceae (Rush Family) Juncus occidentalis Slender Juncus Native N/A Perennial Graminoid 1-5 Cyperaceae (Sedge Family) Carex densa Dense Sedge Native N/A Perennial Graminoid <1 Cyperaceae (Sedge Family) Carex globosa Round-Fruited Sedge Native N/A Perennial Graminoid <1 Cyperaceae (Sedge Family) Cyperus eragrostis Tall Flatsedge Native N/A Perennial Graminoid <1 Cyperaceae (Sedge Family) Eleocharis macrostachya Pale Spikerush Native N/A Perennial Graminoid 11-25 Cyperaceae (Sedge Family) Isolepis cernua Low Bulrush Native N/A Annual Graminoid <1 Cyperaceae (Sedge Family) Schoenoplectus californicus California Bulrush Native N/A Perennial Graminoid 6-10 Dennstaedtiaceae (Bracken Fern Family) Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens Hairy Brackenfern Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Dipsacaceae (Teasel Family) Dipsacus sativus Fuller's Teasel Naturalized Moderate Biennial Forb/herb <1 Dryopteridaceae (Wood Fern Family) Dryopteris arguta Coastal Woodfern Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Dryopteridaceae (Wood Fern Family) Polystichum imbricans ssp. imbricans Rock sword fern Native N/A Fern Ferm <1 Dryopteridaceae (Wood Fern Family) Polystichum munitum Western Sword Fern Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Equisetaceae (Horsetail Family) Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant Horsetail Native N/A Fern Fern <1 Euphorbiaceae (Spurge Family) Euphorbia peplus Petty Spurge Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 ATTACHMENT 2 Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Origin Cal-IPC Rank1 Duration Habit Pct Cover2 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Genista monspessulana French Broom Naturalized High Perennial Shrub <1 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Lathyrus vestitus var. vestitus Hillside Pea Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Lotus corniculatus Bird's-Foot Trefoil Naturalized N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Lupinus affinis Fleshy Lupine Native N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Lupinus bicolor Miniature Lupine Native N/A Annual Forb/herb 1-5 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Medicago polymorpha California Burclover Naturalized Limited Annual, Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Trifolium angustifolium Narrow-Leaved Clover Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb 1-5 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Trifolium campestre Hop Clover Naturalized N/A Annual, Biennial Forb/herb 1-5 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Trifolium dubium Little Hop Clover Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Trifolium fragiferum Strawberry Clover Naturalized N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Trifolium hybridum Alsike Clover Naturalized N/A Annual, Perennial Forb/herb <1 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Trifolium subterraneum Subterranean Clover Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb 1-5 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Trifolium willdenovii Tomcat Clover Native N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Vicia americana ssp. americana American Vetch Native N/A Perennial Vine, Forb/herb <1 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Vicia gigantea Giant Vetch Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Vicia sativa ssp. nigra Smaller Common Vetch Naturalized N/A Annual Vine, Forb/herb 1-5 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Vicia sativa ssp. sativa Spring Vetch Naturalized N/A Annual Vine, Forb/herb <1 Fabaceae (Pea Family) Vicia tetrasperma Sparrow Vetch Naturalized N/A Annual Vine, Forb/herb 1-5 Gentianaceae (Gentian Family) Centaurium tenuiflorum Slender Centaury Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 ATTACHMENT 2 Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Origin Cal-IPC Rank1 Duration Habit Pct Cover2 Geraniaceae (Geranium Family) Erodium botrys Longbeak Stork's Bill Naturalized N/A Annual, Biennial Forb/herb 1-5 Geraniaceae (Geranium Family) Erodium moschatum Greenstem Filaree Naturalized N/A Annual, Biennial Forb/herb <1 Grossulariaceae (Currant Family) Ribes californicum Hillside Gooseberry Native N/A Perennial Shrub <1 Grossulariaceae (Currant Family) Ribes menziesii Gooseberry Native N/A Perennial Shrub <1 Grossulariaceae (Currant Family) Ribes sanguineum var. glutinosum Blood Currant Native N/A Perennial Shrub 1-5 Iridaceae (Iris Family) Iris douglasiana Douglas Iris Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Iridaceae (Iris Family) Romulea rosea var. australis Rosy Sandcrocus Naturalized N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Iridaceae (Iris Family) Sisyrinchium bellum Western Blue-Eyed-Grass Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Juncaceae (Rush Family) Juncus bufonius var. occidentalis Western Toad Rush Native N/A Annual Graminoid <1 Juncaceae (Rush Family) Juncus effusus ssp. pacificus Pacific Rush Native N/A Perennial Graminoid 1-5 Juncaceae (Rush Family) Juncus hesperius Bog Rush Native N/A Perennial Graminoid 6-10 Juncaceae (Rush Family) Juncus occidentalis Western Rush Native N/A Perennial Graminoid 1-5 Juncaceae (Rush Family) Juncus patens Spreading Rush Native N/A Perennial Graminoid 6-10 Juncaceae (Rush Family) Juncus xiphioides Iris-Leaved Rush Native N/A Perennial Graminoid <1 Juncaceae (Rush Family) Luzula comosa var. comosa Hairy Wood Rush Native N/A Perennial Graminoid <1 Juncaginaceae (Arrow-grass Family) Triglochin scilloides Flowering-Quillwort Native N/A Annual Forb/herb (aquatic) <1 Lamiaceae (Mint Family) Clinopodium douglasii Yerba Buena Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb, Subshrub 6-10 Lamiaceae (Mint Family) Mentha pulegium Pennyroyal Naturalized Moderate Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Lamiaceae (Mint Family) Mentha spicata Spearmint Naturalized N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 ATTACHMENT 2 Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Origin Cal-IPC Rank1 Duration Habit Pct Cover2 Lamiaceae (Mint Family) Stachys rigida var. quercetorum Rough Hedgenettle Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Lamiaceae (Mint Family) Stachys rigida var. rigida Hedgenettle Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Linaceae (Flax Family) Linum bienne Pale Flax Naturalized N/A Annual, Biennial, Perennial Forb/herb 6-10 Lythraceae (Loosestrife Family) Lythrum hyssopifolia Hyssop Loosestrife Naturalized Limited Annual, Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Malvaceae (Mallow Family) Malva nicaeensis Bull Mallow Naturalized N/A Annual, Biennial Forb/herb <1 Malvaceae (Mallow Family) Sidalcea malviflora Checkerbloom Native N/A Perennial Subshrub, Forb/herb <1 Myricaceae (Bayberry Family) Morella californica Wax Myrtle Native N/A Perennial Tree, Shrub <1 Myrsinaceae (Myrsine Family) Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel Naturalized N/A Annual, Biennial Forb/herb 1-5 Myrtaceae (Myrtle Family) Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum Naturalized Limited Perennial Tree 26-50 Onagraceae (Evening Primrose Family) Epilobium brachycarpum Tall Annual Willowherb Native N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Onagraceae (Evening Primrose Family) Epilobium ciliatum ssp. ciliatum Fringed Willowherb Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Onagraceae (Evening Primrose Family) Taraxia ovata Sun Cup Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Orobanchaceae (Broom-rape Family) Bellardia trixago Mediterranean Linseed Naturalized Limited Annual Forb/herb <1 Orobanchaceae (Broom-rape Family) Castilleja affinis ssp. affinis Coast Indian Paintbrush Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb, Subshrub <1 Orobanchaceae (Broom-rape Family) Parentucellia viscosa Yellow Glandweed Naturalized Limited Annual Forb/herb 1-5 Orobanchaceae (Broom-rape Family) Triphysaria pusilla Dwarf Owl's-Clover Native N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Orobanchaceae (Broom-rape Family) Triphysaria versicolor ssp. versicolor Yellow-beak Owl's Clover Native N/A Annual Forb/herb 1-5 Oxalidaceae (Wood-Sorrel Family) Oxalis corniculata Creeping Woodsorrel Naturalized N/A Annual, Perennial Forb/herb <1 ATTACHMENT 2 Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Origin Cal-IPC Rank1 Duration Habit Pct Cover2 Oxalidaceae (Wood-Sorrel Family) Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda Buttercup Naturalized Moderate Perennial Forb/herb <1 Oxalidaceae (Wood-Sorrel Family) Oxalis pilosa Hairy wood sorrel Native N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Papaveraceae (Poppy Family) Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Native N/A Annual, Perennial Forb/herb <1 Papaveraceae (Poppy Family) Fumaria capreolata White Ramping Fumitory Naturalized N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Phrymaceae (Lopseed Family) Diplacus aurantiacus Sticky Monkeyflower Native N/A Perennial Shrub <1 Phrymaceae (Lopseed Family) Mimulus guttatus Seep Monkeyflower Native N/A Annual, Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Pinaceae (Pine Family) Pinus radiata* Monterey Pine* Native Limited Perennial Tree 26-50 Pinaceae (Pine Family) Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii Douglas-Fir Native N/A Perennial Tree 1-5 Plantaginaceae (Plantain Family) Kickxia elatine Sharpleaf Cancerwort Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Plantaginaceae (Plantain Family) Plantago coronopus Buckhorn Plantain Naturalized N/A Annual, Biennial Forb/herb <1 Plantaginaceae (Plantain Family) Plantago erecta California plantain Native N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Plantaginaceae (Plantain Family) Plantago lanceolata English Plantain Naturalized Limited Annual, Biennial, Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Plantaginaceae (Plantain Family) Veronica americana American Brooklime Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Poaceae (Grass Family) Agrostis exarata Spike Bent Grass Native N/A Perennial Graminoid <1 Poaceae (Grass Family) Avena barbata Slender Wild Oat Naturalized Moderate Annual Graminoid 6-10 Poaceae (Grass Family) Brachypodium distachyon Annual False-Brome Naturalized Moderate Annual Graminoid 1-5 Poaceae (Grass Family) Briza minor Annual Quaking Grass Naturalized N/A Annual Graminoid 1-5 Poaceae (Grass Family) Bromus diandrus Ripgut Brome Naturalized Moderate Annual, Perennial Graminoid 1-5 ATTACHMENT 2 Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Origin Cal-IPC Rank1 Duration Habit Pct Cover2 Poaceae (Grass Family) Bromus hordeaceus Soft Chess Naturalized Limited Annual Graminoid 6-10 Poaceae (Grass Family) Bromus laevipes Woodland Brome Native N/A Perennial Graminoid <1 Poaceae (Grass Family) Cortaderia jubata Pampas Grass Naturalized High Perennial Graminoid 6-10 Poaceae (Grass Family) Danthonia californica California Oatgrass Native N/A Perennial Graminoid 1-5 Poaceae (Grass Family) Elymus triticoides Beardless Wild Rye Native N/A Perennial Graminoid <1 Poaceae (Grass Family) Festuca arundinacea Tall Fescue Naturalized Moderate Perennial Graminoid <1 Poaceae (Grass Family) Festuca bromoides Brome Fescue Naturalized N/A Annual Graminoid 11-25 Poaceae (Grass Family) Festuca perennis Italian Rye Grass Naturalized Moderate Annual Graminoid 11-25 Poaceae (Grass Family) Gastridium phleoides Nit Grass Naturalized N/A Annual Graminoid 1-5 Poaceae (Grass Family) Holcus lanatus Common Velvet Grass Naturalized Moderate Perennial Graminoid 11-25 Poaceae (Grass Family) Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum Mediterranean Barley Naturalized Moderate Annual Graminoid 1-5 Poaceae (Grass Family) Phalaris aquatica Harding Grass Naturalized Moderate Perennial Graminoid 1-5 Poaceae (Grass Family) Poa annua Annual Blue Grass Naturalized N/A Annual Graminoid <1 Poaceae (Grass Family) Polypogon maritimus Mediterranean Beard Grass Naturalized N/A Annual Graminoid <1 Poaceae (Grass Family) Stipa lepida Foothill Needle Grass Native N/A Perennial Graminoid <1 Poaceae (Grass Family) Stipa miliacea var. miliacea Smilo Grass Naturalized Limited Perennial Graminoid <1 Poaceae (Grass Family) Stipa pulchra Purple Needle Grass Native N/A Perennial Graminoid <1 Polemoniaceae (Phlox Family) Navarretia squarrosa Skunkweed Native N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Polygonaceae (Buckwheat Family) Persicaria punctata Dotted Smartweed Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 ATTACHMENT 2 Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Origin Cal-IPC Rank1 Duration Habit Pct Cover2 Polygonaceae (Buckwheat Family) Rumex acetosella Sheep Sorrel Naturalized Moderate Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Polygonaceae (Buckwheat Family) Rumex conglomeratus Clustered Dock Naturalized N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Polygonaceae (Buckwheat Family) Rumex crispus Curly Dock Naturalized Limited Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Polygonaceae (Buckwheat Family) Rumex pulcher Fiddle Dock Naturalized N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Potamogetonaceae (Pondweed Family) Potamogeton nodosus Long-Leaved Pondweed Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb (aquatic) 6-10 Pteridaceae (Maidenhair Fern Family) Adiantum jordanii California Maidenhair Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Pteridaceae (Maidenhair Fern Family) Pentagramma triangularis ssp. triangularis Goldback Fern Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Ranunculaceae (Buttercup Family) Aquilegia formosa Western Columbine Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Ranunculaceae (Buttercup Family) Ranunculus muricatus Spinyfruit Buttercup Naturalized N/A Annual, Biennial, Perennial Forb/herb <1 Rhamnaceae (Buckthorn Family) Frangula californica ssp. californica California Coffeeberry Native N/A Perennial Shrub 6-10 Rosaceae (Rose Family) Cotoneaster franchetii Cotoneaster Naturalized Moderate Perennial Shrub 1-5 Rosaceae (Rose Family) Drymocallis glandulosa var. glandulosa Sticky Cinquefoil Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Rosaceae (Rose Family) Fragaria vesca Wood Strawberry Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Rosaceae (Rose Family) Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Native N/A Perennial Tree, Shrub 1-5 Rosaceae (Rose Family) Holodiscus discolor var. discolor Oceanspray Native N/A Perennial Shrub 26-50 Rosaceae (Rose Family) Horkelia californica var. californica California Horkelia Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb <1 Rosaceae (Rose Family) Oemleria cerasiformis Indian Plum Native N/A Perennial Tree, Shrub 1-5 Rosaceae (Rose Family) Rosa gymnocarpa var. gymnocarpa Wood Rose Native N/A Perennial Shrub, Subshrub <1 ATTACHMENT 2 Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Origin Cal-IPC Rank1 Duration Habit Pct Cover2 Rosaceae (Rose Family) Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Native N/A Perennial Shrub <1 Rosaceae (Rose Family) Rubus ursinus California Blackberry Native N/A Perennial Subshrub 6-10 Rubiaceae (Madder Family) Galium aparine Common Bedstraw Native N/A Annual Vine, Forb/herb 1-5 Rubiaceae (Madder Family) Galium murale Tiny Bedstraw Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Rubiaceae (Madder Family) Sherardia arvensis Field Madder Naturalized N/A Annual Forb/herb <1 Salicaceae (Willow Family) Salix laevigata Red Willow Native N/A Perennial Tree 11-25 Salicaceae (Willow Family) Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow Native N/A Perennial Tree, Shrub 26-50 Salicaceae (Willow Family) Salix sitchensis Sitka Willow Native N/A Perennial Tree, Shrub 26-50 Scrophulariaceae (Figwort Family) Scrophularia californica California Figwort Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Solanaceae (Potato Family) Solanum americanum American Black Nightshade Native N/A Annual, Perennial Subshrub, Forb/herb <1 Solanaceae (Potato Family) Solanum douglasii Greenspot Nightshade Native N/A Perennial Subshrub, Forb/herb <1 Urticaceae (Nettle Family) Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea Stinging Nettle Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Verbenaceae (Verbena Family) Verbena lasiostachys var. scabrida Robust Vervain Native N/A Perennial Forb/herb 1-5 Woodsiaceae (Cliff Fern Family) Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Western Lady Fern Native N/A Fern Fern <1 1. California Invasive Plant Council, 2019 2. Among stratum and within habitat type in which taxon occurs * Native to California, but not to study area. Considered invasive by local CNPS chapter. Notes: Nomenclature corresponds to Jepson Manual, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) and Jepson Online Interchange (2019). NF = No flower at time of observance. ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX C: Special-Status Plant Taxa Documented in the Vicinity of the Study Area (CNPS 9-Quad Search) ATTACHMENT 2 APPENDIX C. Special-status Vascular Plant Taxa Documented in the Vicinity of the Johnston Ranch Portion of Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve, Half Moon Bay, California. Compiled by Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, 2019. Shaded entries indicate taxa with the highest potential to occur within the study area, based on the habitat and distribution of taxon Scientific Name Common Name (Family) Status1 Federal/ State/CRPR Habitat, Elevation, and Blooming Period2 Potential for Occurrence within the Study Area Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thorn-mint (Lamiaceae) FE/CE/1B.1 Chaparral, Valley and foothill grassland, serpentinite; 160-985 feet; April-June Not expected. No serpentinite within study area. Agrostis blasdalei Blasdale's bent grass (Poaceae) --/--/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie; 0-490 feet; May-July Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 study. Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion (Alliaceae) --/--/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland, clay, volcanic, often serpentinite; 170-1,000 feet; (April) May-June Low quality habitat present (primarily documented on the eastern side of the Santa Cruz Mountains). (Not observed during 2019 surveys. Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck (Boraginaceae) --/--/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; 5-1,640 feet; March-June Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Arabis blepharophylla coast rockcress (Brassicaceae) --/--/4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, rocky; 5-3,610 feet; February-May Not expected. No suitable habitat present. Arctostaphylos andersonii Anderson's manzanita (Ericaceae) --/--/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, North Coast coniferous forest, openings, edges; 195-2,495 feet; November-May Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Arctostaphylos montaraensis Montara manzanita (Ericaceae) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral (maritime), Coastal scrub; 260-1,640 feet; January- March Suitable habitat present, though more associated with maritime chaparral (which is absent from the site). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Arctostaphylos regismontana Kings Mountain manzanita (Ericaceae) --/--/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, North Coast coniferous forest, granitic or sandstone; 1,000-2,395 feet; December-April Not expected. Study area is below species elevation range. Astragalus nuttallii var. nuttallii ocean bluff milk-vetch (Fabaceae) --/--/4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes; 5-395 feet; January-November Not expected. No suitable habitat present. Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus coastal marsh milk-vetch (Fabaceae) --/--/1B.2 Coastal dunes (mesic), Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt, streamsides); 0-100 feet; (April) June-October Suitable habitat present (though typically more strictly coastal). Not observed during 2019 surveys. ATTACHMENT 2 Scientific Name Common Name (Family) Status1 Federal/ State/CRPR Habitat, Elevation, and Blooming Period2 Potential for Occurrence within the Study Area Calandrinia breweri Brewer's calandrinia (Montiaceae) --/--/4.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, sandy or loamy, disturbed sites and burns; 30-4,005 feet; (January) March-June Low quality habitat present (typically occurs on gravely soils). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Calochortus umbellatus Oakland star-tulip (Liliaceae) --/--/4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland, often serpentinite; 325-2,295 feet; March-May Low quality habitat present (no serpentinite). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Castilleja ambigua var. ambigua johnny-nip (Orobanchaceae) --/--/4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools margins; 0- 1,425 feet; March-August Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant (Asteraceae) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal prairie, Meadows and seeps, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), Valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic), often alkaline; 0-1,380 feet; May-November Low quality habitat present (no alkaline soils). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes bird's-beak (Orobanchaceae) --/--/1B.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt); 0-35 feet; June-October Not expected. Primarily associated with immediate coast. Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata San Francisco Bay spineflower (Polygonaceae) --/--/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, sandy; 5-705 feet; April-July (August) Not expected. No sandy soils within study area. Cirsium andrewsii Franciscan thistle (Asteraceae) --/--/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, mesic, sometimes serpentinite; 0-490 feet; March- July Low quality habitat present (no serpentinite). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale Crystal Springs fountain thistle (Asteraceae) FE/CE/1B.1 Chaparral (openings), Cismontane woodland, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland, Serpentinite seeps; 145-575 feet; (April) May-October Not expected. No serpentinite seeps within study area. Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia (Plantaginaceae) --/--/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, Coastal scrub, sometimes serpentinite; 95-820 feet; (February) March-May Suitable habitat present (though no serpentinite). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper (Orchidaceae) --/--/4.2 Lower montane coniferous forest, North Coast coniferous forest, usually serpentinite seeps and streambanks; 325-7,990 feet; March- August Not expected. No serpentinite within study area. ATTACHMENT 2 Scientific Name Common Name (Family) Status1 Federal/ State/CRPR Habitat, Elevation, and Blooming Period2 Potential for Occurrence within the Study Area Cypripedium montanum mountain lady's-slipper (Orchidaceae) --/--/4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, North Coast coniferous forest; 605-7,300 feet; March-August Not expected. No suitable habitat present. Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood (Thymelaeaceae) --/--/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, Riparian forest, Riparian woodland, mesic; 80-1,395 feet; January- March (April) Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Elymus californicus California bottle-brush grass (Poaceae) --/--/4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, Riparian woodland; 45-1,540 feet; May-August (November) Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Eriophyllum latilobum San Mateo woolly sunflower (Asteraceae) FE/CE/1B.1 Cismontane woodland (often serpentinite, on roadcuts), Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest; 145-1,085 feet; May-June Not expected. No serpentinite within study area. Erysimum franciscanum San Francisco wallflower (Brassicaceae) --/--/4.2 Chaparral, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, often serpentinite or granitic, sometimes roadsides; 0- 1,805 feet; March-June Not expected. No serpentinite within study area. Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Hillsborough chocolate lily (Liliaceae) --/--/1B.1 Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland, serpentinite; 490 feet; March-April Not expected. No serpentinite within study area. Fritillaria lanceolata var. tristulis Marin checker lily (Liliaceae) --/--/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub; 45-490 feet; February-May Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary (Liliaceae) --/--/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Often serpentinite; 5-1,345 feet; February-April Low quality habitat present (no serpentinite). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima San Francisco gumplant (Asteraceae) --/--/3.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, sandy or serpentinite; 45-1,310 feet; June-September Low quality habitat present (no sandy soils and no serpentinite). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia short-leaved evax (Asteraceae) --/--/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub (sandy), Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie; 0-705 feet; March-June Marginal suitable habitat present (not true coastal prairie). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax (Linaceae) FT/CT/1B.1 Chaparral, Valley and foothill grassland, serpentinite; 15-1,215 feet; April-July Not expected. No serpentinite within study area. ATTACHMENT 2 Scientific Name Common Name (Family) Status1 Federal/ State/CRPR Habitat, Elevation, and Blooming Period2 Potential for Occurrence within the Study Area Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg's horkelia (Rosaceae) --/--/1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral (maritime), Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, sandy or gravelly, openings; 30-655 feet; April-September Low quality habitat present (no sandy or gravelly soil present). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Horkelia marinensis Point Reyes horkelia (Rosaceae) --/--/1B.2 Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, sandy; 15-2,475 feet; May-September Not expected. No sandy soils within study area. Iris longipetala coast iris (Iridaceae) --/--/4.2 Coastal prairie, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, mesic; 0-1,970 feet; March-May Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha perennial goldfields (Asteraceae) --/--/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub; 15-1,705 feet; January-November Suitable habitat present, but primarily observed on the immediate coast. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Leptosiphon ambiguus serpentine leptosiphon (Polemoniaceae) --/--/4.2 Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, usually serpentinite; 390-3,705 feet; March-June Not expected. No serpentinite within study area. Leptosiphon croceus coast yellow leptosiphon (Polemoniaceae) --/CC/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie; 30-490 feet; April-June Marginal suitable habitat present (not true coastal prairie). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Leptosiphon rosaceus rose leptosiphon (Polemoniaceae) --/--/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub; 0-330 feet; April-July Not expected. No suitable habitat present. Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs lessingia (Asteraceae) --/--/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, serpentinite, often roadsides; 195-655 feet; July-October Not expected. No serpentinite within study area. Lessingia hololeuca woolly-headed lessingia (Asteraceae) --/--/3 Broadleafed upland forest, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland, clay, serpentinite; 45-1,000 feet; June-October Not expected. No serpentinite within study area. Lilium maritimum coast lily (Liliaceae) --/--/1B.1 Broadleafed upland forest, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps (freshwater), North Coast coniferous forest, sometimes roadside; 15-1,560 feet; May- August Not expected. Not documented in the vicinity. Limnanthes douglasii ssp. ornduffii Ornduff's meadowfoam (Limnanthaceae) --/--/1B.1 Meadows and seeps, Agricultural fields; 30-65 feet; November- May Not expected. Study area is above species elevation range. ATTACHMENT 2 Scientific Name Common Name (Family) Status1 Federal/ State/CRPR Habitat, Elevation, and Blooming Period2 Potential for Occurrence within the Study Area Lupinus arboreus var. eximius San Mateo tree lupine (Fabaceae) --/--/3.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub; 295-1,805 feet; April-July Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Malacothamnus aboriginum Indian Valley bush-mallow (Malvaceae) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Rocky, granitic, often in burned areas; 490-5,575 feet; April-October Not expected. No suitable habitat present. Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bush-mallow (Malvaceae) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland; 45-1,165 feet; April-September Not expected. No suitable habitat present. Malacothamnus davidsonii Davidson's bush-mallow (Malvaceae) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland; 605-3,740 feet; June-January Suitable habitat present, but primarily documented on the eastern side of the Santa Cruz mountains. Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush-mallow (Malvaceae) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub; 30-2,495 feet; (April) May-September (October) Suitable habitat present, but primarily documented on the eastern side of the Santa Cruz mountains. Microseris paludosa marsh microseris (Asteraceae) --/--/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; 15-1,165 feet; April-June (July) Suitable habitat present, but not documented in the vicinity. Monolopia gracilens woodland woolythreads (Asteraceae) --/--/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest (openings), Chaparral (openings), Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest (openings), Valley and foothill grassland, Serpentine; 325-3,935 feet; (February) March-July Low quality habitat present (no serpentine and no recent burns). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Pedicularis dudleyi Dudley's lousewort (Orobanchaceae) --/CR/1B.2 Chaparral (maritime), Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland; 195-2,955 feet; April-June Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed pentachaeta (Asteraceae) FE/CE/1B.1 Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland (often serpentinite); 110-2,035 feet; March-May Low quality habitat present (no serpentinite). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower (Boraginaceae) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, mesic; 5-525 feet; March-June Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Polemonium carneum Oregon polemonium (Polemoniaceae) --/--/2B.2 Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest; 0- 6,005 feet; April-September Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. ATTACHMENT 2 Scientific Name Common Name (Family) Status1 Federal/ State/CRPR Habitat, Elevation, and Blooming Period2 Potential for Occurrence within the Study Area Potentilla hickmanii Hickman's cinquefoil (Rosaceae) FE/CE/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps (vernally mesic), Marshes and swamps (freshwater); 30-490 feet; April-August Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Ranunculus lobbii Lobb's aquatic buttercup (Ranunculaceae) --/--/4.2 Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools, mesic; 45-1,540 feet; February- May Not expected. No vernal pools. Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort (Asteraceae) --/--/2B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, sometimes alkaline; 45-2,625 feet; January-April (May) Suitable habitat present, but primarily documented on the eastern side of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri Scouler's catchfly (Caryophyllaceae) --/--/2B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Valley and foothill grassland; 0-1,970 feet; (March-May) June-August (September) Suitable habitat present. Not observed during 2019 surveys. Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion (Caryophyllaceae) --/--/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Chaparral, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, sandy; 95-2,115 feet; (February) March-June (August) Low quality habitat present (no sandy soils). Not observed during 2019 surveys. Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover (Fabaceae) --/--/1B.2 Marshes and swamps, Valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), Vernal pools; 0-985 feet; April-June Not expected. No vernal pools and no alkaline habitats within study area. Triphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl's-clover (Orobanchaceae) --/--/1B.2 Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, usually serpentinite; 30-525 feet; April-June Low quality habitat present (no serpentinite), but primarily documented on the eastern side of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Note: nomenclature corresponds to the most recent Jepson Interchange 1. State or federal listing: F = Federal; C = California; E = endangered; T = threatened; R = rare CRPR List 1B = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in CA and elsewhere; List 2B = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere; List 3 = More information is needed about plant; List 4 = Plants of limited distribution, a watch list CRPR: ‘.1’ = Seriously threatened in CA; ‘.2’ = Fairly threatened in CA; ‘.3’ = Not very threatened in CA 2. Underlined habitat = present within the project area ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX D: Habitat Relevé Forms ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 10 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____ □ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information:□ 0 1 90 0 0 0 0 0 9 415 - 01 4/24/2019 Rebecca Wang John Vollmar Johnston Ranch Bad Elf 5 5 2 2 3 9 4 1 4 6 0 4 3 RWC Clockwise from N 123-126 60 20 20 20 SAND MESIL 0 0 Small, isolated invasive eucalyptus stand. 5 H Eucalyptus globulus Pinus radiata to NW Non-native annual grassland to S E E E Eucalyptus spp. - Ailanthus altissima - Robinia pseudoacacia Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover C Final species determination Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 30 2 4 4 1 415 - 01 0 40 3 25 5 9 Eucalyptus globulus Frangula californica Toxicodendron diversilobum Baccharis pilularis Pseudotsuga menziesii Rubus ursinus Galium aparine Holodiscus discolor 30 15 10 3 3 2 1 1 T S S S T S H S Achillea millefolium Bromus laevipes Geranium dissectum Marah fabacea Oemleria cerasiformis Sanicula crassicaulis Sonchus asper Vicia tetrasperma Helenium puberulum + + + + + + + + + H H H H H H H H H ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 10 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____ □ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information:□ Annual grasslands N and S 415 - 02 4/24/2019 Rebecca Wang John Vollmar Johnston Ranch Bad Elf 5 5 1 5 6 3 4 1 4 5 9 2 0 RWC Clockwise from North 102-105 20 20 210 2 Alluvium MFCL 1 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 1 Salix lasiolepis stand with woodrat nests in the middle. Creek channel is not very downcut, unlike other parts of the site. 093 (woodrat nest) None Salix lasiolepis E E E Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover C Final species determination Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 415 - 02 0 55 1 75 0 10 20 N/A 5 N/A 2 1 Salix lasiolepis Holcus lanatus Bromus laevipes Rubus ursinus Toxicodendron diversilobum Rubus parviflorus Carex densa Polystichum imbricans Vicia tetrasperma 55 12 5 5 3 2 1 1 1 T H H S S S H H H Carduus pycnocephalus Dryopteris arguta Fragaria vesca Juncus patens Lonicera involucrata Rumex sp. (no flower) Torilis arvensis + + + + + + + H H H H S H H ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 10 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____ □ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information: □P E N/A 415 - 03 4/24/2019 Rebecca Wang John Vollmar Johnston Ranch Bad Elf 5 5 1 5 0 4 4 1 4 5 9 3 4 RWC Clockwise from North 098-101 10 10 10160 Alluvium MFCL 0 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 87 2 15 4 L Grazed grassland, but in better condition and less impacted by excess cattle as compared to area around corral. Grassland representative of drier grasslands on site. Annual grassland (no formal MCV classification) ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover C Final species determination Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 415 - 03 0 65 0 0 0 + 65 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 Festuca bromoides Bromus hordeaceus Erodium botrys Juncus bufonius Trifolium subterraneum Trifolium dubium Juncus occidentalis Romulea rosea Taraxia ovata Baccharis pilularis Bellardia trixago Lythrum hyssopifolia Plantago lanceolata 30 10 5 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 H H H H H H H H H SE H H H Briza minor Danthonia californica Helminthotheca echioides Hypochaeris radicata Linum bienne Lysimachia arvensis Sonchus asper + + + + + + + H H H H H H H ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 10 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____ □ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information:□ 0 2 5 0 0 0 + 2 91 Annual grassland N Salix lasiolepis E 415 - 04 4/24/2019 Rebecca Wang John Vollmar Johnston Ranch Bad Elf 5 5 1 3 1 0 4 1 4 5 7 4 9 RWC Clockwise from North 106-109 160 7 MFCLAlluvium 0 1 Mix of large dead plants and young recruits. Mature, self-reproducing stand. 20 20 4 L Baccharis pilularis E E N/A Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover C Final species determination Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 0 40 40 415 - 04 +70 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 3 1 Baccharis pilularis Bromus hordeaceus Holcus lanatus Conium maculatum Juncus patens Vicia tetrasperma Carduus pycnocephalus Carex globosa Diplacus aurantiacus Festuca bromoides Geranium dissectum Helminthotheca echioides Lysimachia arvensis Pseudognaphalium californicum Sanicula crassicaulis Stachys rigida Torilis arvensis Toxicodendron diversilobum 40 35 2 1 1 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + S H H H H H H H S H H H H H H H H S ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 10 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____ □ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information:□ 415 - 05 4/24/2019 Rebecca Wang John Vollmar Johnston Ranch Bad Elf 5 5 1 5 6 3 4 1 4 5 6 4 7 RWC No photos taken 230 10 10 10 Alluvium MFSL 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 94 2 5 Typical annual grassland. 4 L Non-native Annual Grassland Salix lasiolepis / to S , Baccharis pilularis / to far N , Eleocharis macrostachya / to far W P N/A N/A Annual grassland (no formal MCV classification exists) ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover C Final species determination Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 0 0 70 0 70 415 - 05 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Festuca bromoides Bromus hordeaceus Trifolium subterraneum Bromus diandrus Erodium botrys Trifolium dubium Juncus occidentalis Romulea rosea Taraxia ovata 24 17 10 5 5 5 1 1 1 H H H H H H H H H Bellardia trixago Danthonia californica Foeniculum vulgare Hypochaeris radicata Linum bienne Lythrum hyssopifolia H H H H H H + + + + + + ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 10 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____ □ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information:□ 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 94 Eleocharis macrostachya E 415 - 06 7/17/2019 Rebecca Wang John Vollmar Johnston Ranch Bad Elf JSP Clockwise from North 662-665 5 5 1 4 1 2 4 1 4 5 6 0 6 160 2 10 10 Alluvium MFCL 0 20 Open Juncus stand, probably with sub-surface water outside the main swale. 4 M Juncus patens Annual grassland further E E E N/A Initially visited on 4/24/2019. Point revisited in July for peak bloom. Lolium perenne* Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance *Inactive name, but consistent with MCV classification name ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover C Final species determination Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 0 2 65 N/A 2 2 415 - 06 0 65 0 0 N/A N/A Festuca perennis Holcus lanatus Juncus hesperius Mentha pulegium Helminthotheca echioides Lotus corniculatus Juncus patens Baccharis pilularis Parentucellia viscosa Symphyotrichum sp. (no flower) 40 20 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 H H H H H H H S H H Carex densa Cirsium vulgare Cyperus eragrostis Festuca bromoides Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum Linum bienne Lythrum hyssopifolia Rumex crispus Rumex pulcher Trifolium fragiferum Vicia sativa + + + + + + + + + + + H H H H H H H H H H H ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 10 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____□ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information:□ 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 97 415 - 07 7/17/2019 Rebecca Wang John Vollmar Johnston Ranch Bad Elf 5 5 1 3 9 5 4 1 4 5 5 1 3 10 10 0N/A Alluvium MFSL 0 25 Eleocharis marsh with some Juncus. Eleocharis follows wettest part of swale, while adjacent Juncus type is in a wet terrace. 4 M Eleocharis macrostachya Juncus patens N Annual grassland S and E E E N/A JSP Clockwise from North 666-669 Seasonal wetland (no formal MCV classification exists) ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover C Final species determination Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 0 1 80 415 - 07 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 0 80 Eleocharis macrostachya Festuca perennis Lotus corniculatus Mentha pulegium Holcus lanatus Trifolium fragiferum Juncus patens Juncus hesperius Hordeum brachyantherum Baccharis pilularis Rumex crispus Rumex pulcher H H H H H H H H H S H H 20 20 15 5 5 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 11 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____ □ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information: □ 415 - 08 4/24/2019 Rebecca Wang John Vollmar Johnston Ranch Bad Elf 5 5 2 0 5 5 4 1 4 5 6 5 0 20 20 RWC Clockwise from N 127-130 280 18 SAND MFSL 0 1 80 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 30 Medium aged stand with some old trees and some recruits. 4 L Pinus radiata Non-native annual grassland to S Baccharis pilularis scrub mix to S E E E Pinus muricata - Pinus radiata Forest Alliance ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover C Final species determination Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 0 50 1 30 5 4 1 1 415 - 08 30 0 8 N/A Pinus radiata Rubus ursinus Sanicula crassicaulis Toxicodendron diversilobum Bromus laevipes Juncus patens 30 25 5 3 1 1 T S H S H H Baccharis pilularis Carex densa Carex globosa Clinopodium douglasii Fragaria vesca Galium aparine Geranium dissectum Oxalis corniculata Pentagramma triangularis Senecio vulgaris Sherardia arvensis Sonchus oleraceus Taraxia ovata Vicia americana Vicia sativa ssp. nigra + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + S H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 10 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____ □ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information:□ Jake Schweitzer 415 - 09 4/24/2019 Johnston Ranch GPS 2 5 5 2 2 7 6 4 1 4 5 5 3 5 24 JS 892-895 896 - stream center 10 40 10255 MFSL 3 3 60 0 0 0 0 1 33 0 1 Seasonal stream corridor. Litter is made up of leaves and branches. 5 M 4 L Salix lasiolepis Annual grasslands E E E Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover Stratum Species Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 15 20 415 - 09 5 40 +70 Toxicodendron diversilobum Lonicera involucrata Fragaria vesca Pinus radiata Salix laevigata Rubus ursinus Polystichum munitum Stachys rigida var. rigida Urtica dioica Clinopodium douglasii Morella californica Carex densa Holcus lanatus Holodiscus discolor Marah oregana Ribes sanguineum Sambucus racemosa Sanicula crassicaulis Stachys rigida var. quercetorum Woodwardia fimbriata Achillea millefolium Angelica tomentosa Artemisia douglasii Athyrium filix-femina Bromus laevipes Cardamine oligosperma Carex globosa Cirsium brevistylum Cirsium vulgare Conium maculatum Cyperus eragrostis Delairea odorata Elymus glauca Epilobium ciliatum Equisetum telmateia Foeniculum vulgare Frangula californica Galium aparine Geranium dissectum Helminthotheca echioides Heracleum maximum Juncus effusus Poa annua Salix lasiolepis Salix lasiolepis Scrophularia californica Solanum americanum Sonchus asper Trillium chloropetalum Vicia gigantea Vicia tetrasperma % cover 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 15 35 5 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + T S T T H S SA S S S S H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 10 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____ □ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information: □ 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 + 93 415 - 10 4/24/2019 Jake Schweitzer Johnston Ranch GPS 2/JS iPad 5 5 2 2 3 9 4 1 4 5 4 2 8 JS 897-900 20 20 330 18 MESI 1 1 Moderately steep coastal scrub habitat along north-facing slope. 5 L 4 L Baccharis pilularis Grassland/wetland to North Pinus radiata to South E E E Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover C Final species determination Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 65 10 415 - 10 0 80 5 0 5 3 26 N/A Baccharis pilularis Rubus ursinus Eriophyllum staechadifolium Pinus radiata Holodiscus discolor Clinopodium douglasii Toxicodendron diversilobum Asteraceous (no flower--early leaf forms) Ribes sanguineum Sanicula crassicaulis Symphyotrichum sp. (no flower) Stachys rigida Verbena lasiostachys Dryopteris arguta Festuca bromoides Galium aparine Lonicera involucrata Morella californica Pentagramma triangularis Pinus radiata Sonchus asper Achillea millefolium Barbarea orthoceras Carex densa Conium maculatum Galium porrigens Geranium dissectum Helenium puberulum Juncus patens Lysimachia arvensis Marah fabacea Symphoricarpos albus Torilis arvensis Vicia tetrasperma 35 15 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + S S S T S H S H S H H H H H H H S S H SA H H H H H H H H H H H S H H ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 10 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____ □ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information: □ 415 - 11 4/24/2019 Jake Schweitzer Johnston Ranch GPS 2 5 5 2 2 6 1 4 1 4 5 3 7 0 P P E 5 L 4 L 1 + 31" JS 903-906 345 15 MESI 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 1 87 Steep north-facing slope supporting Holodiscus discolor. Most litter is made up of branches. Many woodrat nests in the area, including collapsed nests. Non-vasular cover is moss on the ground. 20 20 Holodiscus discolor Holodiscus discolor Shrubland Alliance ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover C Final species determination Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ + 70 10 5 4 1 415 - 11 10 0 +80 7 N/A Holodiscus discolor Oemleria cerasiformis Eriophyllum staechadifolium Pinus radiata Baccharis pilularis Sambucus racemosa Sanicula crassicaulis Clinopodium douglasii Asteraceous (no flower) Dryopteris arguta Marah fabacea Poaceae sp. (no flower) Scrophularia californica Toxicodendron diversilobum 37 15 10 10 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 S S S T S S H H H H H H H S Cardamine oligosperma Cerastium glomeratum Chlorogalum pomeridianum Eriophyllum staechadifolium Festuca bromoides Galium aparine Pentagramma triangularis Phalaris aquatica Rubus ursinus Sonchus asper + + + + + + + + + + H H H SE H H H H S H ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 1 For Office Use: Final database #: Final vegetation type: Alliance______________________________________________ Association I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION circle: Relevé or RA Database #: Date: Name of recorder: Other surveyors: □ UID: Location Name: □ GPS name: __________ For Relevé only: Bearing°, left axis at ID point_____ of Long / Short side □ UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Zone: 10 NAD83 GPS error: ft./ m./ PDOP _____ Decimal degrees: LAT ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ LONG ___ ___ ___ . ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GPS within stand? Yes / No If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m) _____ bearing ° _____ inclination ° _____ and record: Base point ID ____________________ Projected UTMs: UTME ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ UTMN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ □ □ Camera Name: Cardinal photos at ID point: From north, clockwise 884-887 □ Other photos: Stand Size (acres): <1, 1-5, >5 | Plot Area (m2): 100 / ______ | Plot Dimensions ____ x____ m | RA Radius____ m Exposure, Actual º: ______ NE NW SE SW Flat Variable | Steepness, Actual º: ______ 0º 1-5º>5-25º> 25 □ □ Topography: Macro: top upper mid lower bottom | Micro: convex flat concave undulating Geology code: _____________ Soil Texture code: ______________ | Upland or Wetland/Riparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60cm diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (Incl sand, mud) H20: BA Stems: Litter: Bedrock: Boulder: Stone: Cobble: Gravel: Fines: =100% □ □ □ % Current year bioturbation ______ Past bioturbation present? Yes / No | % Hoof punch ______ Fire evidence: Yes / No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, including date of fire, if known. □ □ Site history, stand age, comments: □ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ _____/____ “Other” _______________ / ____ □ II. HABITAT DESCRIPTION Tree DBH : T1 (<1” dbh), T2 (1-6” dbh), T3 (6-11” dbh), T4 (11-24” dbh), T5 (>24” dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 or T4 layer under T5, >60% cover) Shrub: S1 seedling (<3 yr. old), S2 young (<1% dead), S3 mature (1-25% dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: H1 (<12” plant ht.), H2 (>12” ht.) Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: 1 (<2ft. stem ht.), 2 (2-10ft. ht.), 3 (10-20ft. ht.), 4 (>20ft. ht.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5” base diameter), 2 (1.5-6” diam.), 3 (>6” diam.) □ □ □ III. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation Alliance name: ___________________________________________________________________________ □ Field-assessed Association name (optional): _________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Alliances/direction: _____________________________________/___________, _____________________________________/________ □ □ Confidence in Alliance identification: L M H Explain: ________________________________________________________ □ Phenology (E,P,L): Herb____ Shrub____ Tree____ Other identification or mapping information:□ 0 2 65 0 0 0 0 0 33 415 - 12 4/24/2019 Jake Schweitzer Johnston Ranch JS iPad/GPS 2 5 5 2 4 2 8 4 1 4 5 4 1 0 20 20 17° 0 MESI 1 Moderately steep northwest facing slope with Pinus radiata dominant. Probably coastal scrub in the past. Most of the litter consists of pine needles, plus branches and cones. Non-vascular vegetation = Lichen 5 M Pinus radiata Baccharis pilularis all around E E E Pinus muricata - Pinus radiata Forest Alliance ATTACHMENT 2 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Page 2 Database #: __________ SPECIES SHEET IV.VEGETATION DESCRIPTION % NonVasc cover:____ Total % Vasc Veg cover:_____ % Cover - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height Class - Conifer tree / Hardwood tree: _____/_____ Regenerating Tree: _____ Shrub: _____ Herbaceous: _____ Height classes: 1=<1/2m, 2=1/2-1m, 3=1-2m, 4=2-5m, 5=5-10m, 6=10-15m, 7=15-20m, 8=20-35m, 9=35-50m, 10=>50m □ □ □ Stratum categories: T=Tree, A = SApling, E = SEedling, S = Shrub, H= Herb, N= Non-vascular % Cover Intervals for reference: r = trace, + = <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75% Stratum Species % cover C Final species determination Unusual species: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 10 5 5 2 1 40 0 8 N/A 415 - 12 +60 Pinus radiata Rubus ursinus Symphyotrichum sp. (no flower) Artemisia douglasiana Galium aparine Toxicodendron diversilobum Clinopodium douglasii Holodiscus discolor Pinus radiata Ribes sanguineum Scrophularia californica Stachys rigida var. quercetorum Angelica tomentosa Baccharis pilularis Bromus laevipes Cardamine californica Carex sp. (no flower) Conium maculatum Diplacus aurantiacus Dryopteris arguta Geranium dissectum Holcus lanatus Juncus patens Lonicera involucrata Marah oregana Sanicula crassicaulis Vicia tetrasperma + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 40 7 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 T S H H H S H S SA S H H S H H H H H S H H H H H H H H ATTACHMENT 2 Johnston Ranch, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 2019 Botanical Resources Survey Report Appendices November 2019 APPENDIX E: Habitat Relevé Form Instructions and Documentation ATTACHMENT 2 1 APPENDIX E PROTOCOL FOR THE CNPS RELEVÉ SAMPLING FIELD FORM Introduction This protocol describes the methodology for the relevé vegetation sampling techniques. The same environmental data are collected for both techniques. For more background on the relevé and rapid assessment sampling methods, see the relevé and rapid assessment protocols at www.cnps.org. Note that this form has been adapted for the Loma Fire Habitat Study, Santa Clara County, California. Some attributes have been removed that are not applicable to the study, and several attributes related to post-fire habitat conditions have been added. For this project, collect rapid assessments in woody vegetation and relevés in herbaceous vegetation. Defining a Stand A stand is the basic physical unit of vegetation in a landscape. It has no set size. Some vegetation stands are very small, such as a portion of a vernal pool, and some may be several square kilometers in size, such as forest types. All samples should be in stands that meet the minimum mapping unit of 1 acre for upland and 0.5 acre for special stands such as small wetlands, riparian and serpentine barrens. A stand is defined by two main unifying characteristics: 1) It has compositional integrity. Throughout the site, the combination of species is similar. The stand is differentiated from adjacent stands by a discernable boundary that may be abrupt or indistinct. 2) It has structural integrity. It has a similar history or environmental setting that affords relatively similar horizontal and vertical spacing of plant species. For example, a hillside forest originally dominated by the same species that burned on the upper part of the slopes, but not the lower, would be divided into two stands. Likewise, sparse woodland occupying a slope with very shallow rocky soils would be considered a different stand from an adjacent slope with deeper, moister soil and a denser woodland or forest of the same species. The structural and compositional features of a stand are often combined into a term called homogeneity. For an area of vegetated ground to meet the requirements of a stand, it must be homogeneous (uniform in structure and composition throughout). Location of GPS Points For relevés, one corner will be considered the plot Identifier (ID point) and should be in the SW corner, if possible. If it is taken in another corner, this should be noted in the Site history section. Definitions of fields in the protocol ATTACHMENT 2 2 I. LOCATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION Relevé or RA: Circle the appropriate survey type. Database #: This is the unique ID number for or all relevé and rapid assessments, in the form of SSNFxxxx. Date: Date of the sampling. Name of recorder: The full name of the recorder should be provided for the first field form for the day. On successive forms, initials can be recorded. Other Surveyors: The full names of each person assisting should be provided for the first field form for the day. On successive forms, initials of each person assisting can be recorded. Location Name: The name of the property, park, or the location within large holdings (like USFS or BLM properties). GPS name: The name/number assigned to each GPS unit. This can be the serial number if another number is not assigned. UTM coordinates: Easting (UTME) and northing (UTMN) location coordinates using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid. Record the information from your GPS unit. These coordinates are always the base point of the survey. Soil samples and photos are taken from this point, and exposure, steepness, topography, etc. are measured here. If the GPS is not within the stand (i.e., the point is projected), these are the UTMs of the base point. For relevé plots, take the waypoint in the southwest corner of the plot whenever possible or in the center of a circular plot. Decimal degrees: Use this only if your GPS unit will not record UTM coordinates. Latitude–Longitude reading in decimal degrees. Record the information from your GPS unit. These coordinates are always the base point of the survey. Soil samples and photos are taken from this point, and exposure, steepness, topography, etc. are measured here. For relevé plots, take the waypoint in the southwest corner of the plot whenever possible or in the center of a circular plot. If No, cite from GPS to stand: distance (m), bearing°, inclination°: From the base GPS point, measure the distance to the projected point using a range finder. Record the compass bearing from the base point to the projected point; record the inclination if the base and projected points are not at the same elevation. and record projected UTMs: These are the coordinates of the projected point, or the point being surveyed. They are generated in the field if the GPS units have the ability to calculate projected points. If the GPS unit does not have this capability, make a note to that effect and leave these fields blank. ATTACHMENT 2 3 Camera Name: Write the camera name. Cardinal photos at ID point: Take four photos in the main cardinal directions (N, E, S, W) clockwise from the north, from the ID Point and record the jpeg numbers here. Try to include the horizon in at least some of these photos. If this is a distance survey to a projected point, take the four cardinal photos at the base point and at least one photo of the stand. Other photos: This may include cardinal photos at additional corners or other relevant photos. Notes regarding photo locations or subjects can go here. Stand Size: Estimate the size of the entire stand in which the sample is taken. As a measure, one acre is about 4000 square meters (approximately 64 x 64 m), or 208 feet by 208 feet. One acre is similar in size to a football field. Plot Size: If this is a relevé, circle “100” for a 100m2 plot, or record the plot size. Plot Shape: Record the length and width of the relevé plot in meters. RA Radius: Enter the radius of the visually estimated sample area for rapid assessments (should be a 20 meter radius minimum). For a large stand, this limits the area covered by the RA. If you can see and assess the entire stand, the length and width should be recorded. If it is a long, narrow stand, note the width of the stand at your location. If your point is on the edge of the stand, record the radius into the stand, but note your location and the direction to which the RA Radius applies in the Site History section. Exposure: (Enter actual º and circle general category): While facing in the general downhill direction, read degrees of the compass for the aspect or the direction you are standing, using degrees from north, adjusted for declination. Average the reading over the entire stand, even if you are sampling a relevé plot, since your plot is representative of the stand. If estimating the exposure, write “N/A” for the actual degrees, and circle the general category chosen. “Variable” may be selected if the same, homogenous stand of vegetation occurs across a varied range of slope exposures. Select “all” if stand is on top of a knoll that slopes in all directions or if the same, homogenous stand of vegetation occurs across all ranges of slope. Steepness: (Enter actual º and circle general category): Read degree slope from your compass. If estimating, write “N/A” for the actual degrees, and circle the general category chosen. Make sure to average the reading across the entire stand even if you are sampling in a relevé plot. Topography: First assess the broad (Macro) topographic feature or general position of the stand in the surrounding watershed, that is, the stand is at the top, upper (1/3 of slope), middle (1/3 of slope), lower (1/3 of slope), or bottom. Circle all of the positions that apply for macrotopography. Then assess the local (Micro) topographic features or the lay of the area (e.g., surface is flat or concave). Circle only one of the microtopographic descriptors. ATTACHMENT 2 4 Geology code: Geological parent material of site. If exact type is unknown, use a more general category (e.g., igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary). See code list for types. Soil Texture code: Record soil texture that is characteristic of the site (e.g., coarse loamy sand, sandy clay loam). See soil texture key and code list for types. Upland or Wetland/Riparian: Indicate if the stand is in upland or a wetland/riparian. (Wetland and riparian are one category.) Note that a site need not be officially delineated as a wetland to qualify as such in this context (e.g., seasonally wet meadow). % Surface cover (abiotic substrates). The total should sum to 100%. It is helpful to imagine “mowing off” all of the live vegetation at the base of the plants and removing it – you will be estimating what is left covering the surface. Note that non-vascular cover (lichens, mosses, cryptobiotic crusts) is not estimated in this section. % Water: Percent surface cover of running or standing water, ignoring the substrate below the water. % BA Stems: Percent surface cover of the basal area of stems at the ground surface. For most vegetation types, BA is 1-3% cover. % Litter: Percent surface cover of litter, duff, or wood on the ground. % Bedrock: Percent surface cover of bedrock. % Boulders: Percent surface cover of rocks > 60 cm in diameter. % Stone: Percent surface cover of rocks 25-60 cm in diameter. % Cobble: Percent surface cover of rocks 7.5 to 25 cm in diameter. % Gravel: Percent surface cover of rocks 2 mm to 7.5 cm in diameter. % Fines: Percent surface cover of bare ground and fine sediment (e.g., dirt) < 2 mm in diameter. % Current year bioturbation: Estimate the percent of the sample or stand exhibiting soil disturbance by any organism that lives underground. Do not include disturbance by ungulates. Note that this is a separate estimation from surface cover. Past bioturbation present? Circle Yes if there is evidence of bioturbation from previous years. % Hoof punch: Note the percent of the sample or stand surface that has been punched down by hooves (cattle or native grazers) in wet soil. Fire Evidence: Circle Yes if there is visible evidence of fire, and note the type of evidence in the “Site history, stand age and comments section,” for example, “charred dead stems of Quercus berberidifolia extending 2 feet above resprouting shrubs.” If you are certain of the year of the fire, put this in the Site history section. Site history, stand age, and comments: Briefly describe the stand age/seral stage, disturbance history, nature and extent of land use, and other site environmental and vegetation factors, such as distribution of species. Examples of disturbance history: fire, landslides, avalanching, drought, flood, animal burrowing, or pest outbreak. Also, try to estimate year or frequency of disturbance. Examples of land use: grazing, timber harvest, ATTACHMENT 2 5 or mining. Examples of other site factors: exposed rocks, soil with fine-textured sediments, high litter/duff build-up, multi-storied vegetation structure, or other stand dynamics. Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): List codes for potential or existing impacts on the stability of the plant community. See code list for impacts and definitions of levels of disturbance. Characterize each impact each as L (=Light), M (=Moderate), or H (=Heavy). Disturbance is evaluated on a stand basis. II. HABITAT AND VEGETATION DESCRIPTION California Wildlife-Habitat Relationships (CWHR) For CWHR, identify the size/height class of the stand using the following tree, shrub, and/or herbaceous categories. These categories are based on functional life forms. Tree DBH: Circle one of the tree size classes provided when the tree canopy closure exceeds 10 percent of the total cover, or if young tree density indicates imminent tree dominance. Size class is based on the average diameter at breast height (dbh) of each trunk (standard breast height is 4.5ft or 137cm). When marking the main size class, make sure to estimate the mean diameter of all trees over the entire stand, and weight the mean toward the larger tree dbh’s. The “T6 multi-layered” dbh size class contains a multi- layered tree canopy (with a size class T3 and/or T4 layer growing under a T5 layer and a distinct height separation between the classes) exceeding 60% total cover. Stands in the T6 class need also to contain at least 10% cover of size class 5 (>24” dbh) trees growing over a distinct layer with at least 10% combined cover of trees in size classes 3 or 4 (>11- 24” dbh). Shrub: Circle one of the shrub size classes provided when shrub canopy closure exceeds 10 percent (except in desert types) by recording which class is predominant in the survey. Shrub size class is based on the average amount of crown decadence (dead standing vegetation on live shrubs when looking across the crowns of the shrubs). Herb: Circle one of the herb height classes when herbaceous cover exceeds 2 percent by recording the predominant class in the survey. Note: This height class is based on the average plant height at maturity, not necessarily at the time of observation. INTERPRETATION OF STAND Field-assessed vegetation alliance name: Enter the name of alliance following the Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens 2009). Please use scientific nomenclature, e.g., Quercus agrifolia forest. An alliance is based on the dominant or diagnostic species of the stand, and is usually of the uppermost and/or dominant height stratum. A dominant species covers the greatest area. A diagnostic species is consistently found in some vegetation types but not others. The field-assessed alliance name may not exist in the present classification, in which case you can provide a new alliance name in this field. If this is the case, also make sure to ATTACHMENT 2 6 state that it is not in the MCV under the explanation for “Confidence in alliance identification.” Field-assessed association name (optional): Enter the name of the species in the alliance and additional dominant/diagnostic species from any strata. In following naming conventions, species in differing strata are separated with a slash, and species in the uppermost stratum are listed first (e.g., Quercus douglasii/Toxicodendron diversilobum). Species in the same stratum are separated with a dash (e.g., Quercus lobata-Quercus douglasii). The field-assessed association name may not exist in the present classification, in which you can provide a new association name in this field. Phenology: Indicate early (E), peak (P) or late (L) phenology for each of the strata. For herbs, this generally indicates if species are in flower and/or fruit and are therefore identifiable. For shrubs and trees, this attribute generally refers to cover, e.g., a tree that is fully leafed out will be considered peak (P) even if it is not in flower. Phenology is useful for cover estimation and species identification issues, and should be elaborated upon in the next field. Other identification problems or mapping issues: Discuss any further problems with the identification of the assessment or issues that may be of interest to mappers. Overall Cover of Vegetation Provide an estimate of cover for the life-form categories below. Record a specific number for the total aerial cover or “bird’s-eye view” looking from above for each category, estimating cover for the living plants only. Litter/duff should not be included in these estimates. The porosity of the vegetation should be taken into consideration when estimating percent foliar cover for all categories below: consider how much of the sky you can see when you are standing under the canopy of a tree, or how much light passes through the canopy of the shrub layer to help you estimate foliar cover. % NonVasc cover: The total cover of all lichens, bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hornworts), and cryptogamic crust on substrate surfaces including downed logs, rocks and soil, but not on standing or inclined trees or vertical rock surfaces. % Vasc Veg cover: The total cover of all vascular vegetation taking into consideration the porosity, or the holes, in the vegetation, and disregarding overlap1 of the various tree, shrub, and/or herbaceous layers and species. % Cover by Layer 1 Porosity reduces the total cover of the canopy. Overlapping strata should not be included in the total cover percent; for instance, if a shrub is growing under a tree, only the cover of the tree will be added into the total; the cover of the shrub will be disregarded, except for the amount by which it fills in the porosity of the tree canopy. ATTACHMENT 2 7 % Conifer Tree /Hardwood Tree: The total foliar cover (considering porosity) of all live tree species, disregarding overlap1 of individual trees. Estimate conifer and hardwood covers separately. Please note: These cover values should not include the coverage of regenerating tree species (i.e., tree seedlings and saplings). % Regenerating Tree: The total foliar cover of seedlings and saplings, disregarding overlap1 of individual recruits. See seedling and sapling definitions below. %Shrub: The total foliar cover (considering porosity) of all live shrub species disregarding overlap1 of individual shrubs. %Herbaceous: The total cover (considering porosity) of all herbaceous species, disregarding overlap1 of individual herbs. Height Class by Layer Modal height for conifer tree /hardwood tree, shrub, and herbaceous categories: Record an average height value per each category by estimating the mean height for each group. Please use the following height intervals to record a height class: 01 = <1/2 m, 02 = 1/2-1 m, 03 = 1-2 m, 04 = 2-5 m, 05 = 5-10 m, 06 = 10-15 m, 07 = 15-20 m, 08 = 20-35 m, 09 = 35-50 m, 10 => 50 m. Note: For the herbaceous layer height, this height class is based on the average plant height at the time of observation, as opposed to how this is recorded in the CWHR section (at maturity). Species List and Coverage For rapid assessments, list up to 20 species that are dominant or that are characteristically consistent within the assessment area. These species may or may not be abundant, but they should be constant representatives in the survey. When different layers of vegetation occur, make sure to list species from each stratum. As a general guide, make sure to list at least 1-2 of the most abundant species per stratum. If constant, diagnostic, or interesting species occur outside the assessment area but in the stand, list the species and estimated stand cover in the Site History section. For relevés, list all species present in the plot, using a second species list page if necessary. Use the lower portion of the form to record unknowns, one species per line. This allows space for the final determination to be recorded without obscuring the original information. For both sample types, provide the stratum: T = Tree. A woody perennial plant that has a single trunk. S = Shrub. A perennial, woody plant, that is multi-branched and doesn’t die back to the ground every year. H = Herb. An annual or perennial that dies down to ground level every year. E = SEedling. A tree species clearly of a very young age that is < 1” dbh or has not reached breast height. Applies only to trees propagating from seed; resprouts are not recorded here even if they meet the size requirements. ATTACHMENT 2 8 A = SApling. 1" - <6" dbh and young in age, OR small trees that are <1” dbh, are clearly of appreciable age, and are kept short by repeated browsing, burning, or other disturbance. Includes trees that are re-sprouting from roots or stumps following fire, logging or other disturbance. These re-sprouts may exhibit a shrubby form, with multiple small trunks, but are species that are generally considered trees. If a majority of the trunks are >6” dbh, then the re-sprouts would be recorded under the “Tree” stratum. N = Non-vascular. Includes moss, lichen, liverworts, hornworts, cryptogammic crust, and algae. Be consistent and don’t break up a single species into two separate strata. The only time it would be appropriate to do so is when one or more tree species are regenerating, in which case the Seedling and/or Sapling strata should be recorded for that species. These may be noted on the same line, e.g.: If you’re unsure of the strata for a species, call it what it is called in the MCV or, as a second choice, the Jepson Manual. C: If a species collection is made, it should be indicated in the collection column with a “C” (for collected). If the species is later keyed out, cross out the species name or description and write the keyed species name in pen on the data sheet. Do not erase what was written in the field, because this information can be used if specimens get mixed up later. If the specimen is then thrown out, the “C” in the collection column should crossed out. If the specimen is kept but is still not confidently identified, add a “U” to the “C” in the collection column (CU = collected and unconfirmed). In this case the unconfirmed species epithet should be put in parentheses [e.g., Hordeum (murinum)]. If the specimen is kept and is confidently identified, add a “C” to the existing “C” in the collection column (CC = Collected and confirmed). Use Jepson Manual nomenclature. Write out the genus and species of the plant. Do not abbreviate except for dominant species that do not have ambiguous codes. If you aren’t sure there aren’t duplicate codes, don’t use a code. When uncertain of an identification (which you intend to confirm later) use parentheses to indicate what part of the determination needs to be confirmed. For example, you could write out Brassica (nigra) if you are sure it is a Brassica but you need further clarification on the specific epithet. Provide the % absolute foliar cover for each species listed considering porosity. When estimating, it is often helpful to think of coverage in terms of the following cover intervals at first: <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75%. Keeping these classes in mind, refine your estimate to a specific percentage. All species percent covers may total over 100% because of overlap. Include the percent cover of snags (standing dead) of trees and shrubs. Use the code “SNAG.” Note their species, if known, in the “Species” column (i.e. SNAG – Quercus wislizeni). Strata Species %Cover C T/E/A Quercus douglasii 40/<1/<1 ATTACHMENT 2 9 For rapid assessments, make sure that the major non-native species occurring in the stand also are listed in the space provided in the species list with their strata and % cover. For relevés, all non-native species should be included in the species list. Also for relevés, record the <1% cover in one of two categories: “r” for trace (i.e., rare in plot, or solitary individuals) and “+” for <1% but not rare or solitary individuals. Unusual species: List species that are locally or regionally rare, endangered, or atypical (e.g., range extension or range limit) within the stand. This field will be useful to the Program for obtaining data on regionally or locally significant populations of plants. ATTACHMENT 2 10 GEOLOGY CODE IGTU Igneous (type unknown) MIIG Mixed igneous ULTU Ultramafic (type unknown) VOLC General volcanic extrusives ANDE Andesite ASHT Ash (of any origin) BASA Basalt DIAB Diabase OBSI Obsidian PUMI Pumice PYFL Pyroclastic flow RHYO Rhyolite VOFL Volcanic flow VOMU Volcanic mud INTR General igneous intrusives DIOR Diorite GABB Gabbro GRAN Granitic (generic) MONZ Monzonite PERI Peridotite QUDI Quartz diorite METU Metamorphic (type unknown) MIME Mixed metamorphic GREE Greenstone BLUE Blue schist FRME Franciscan melange GNBG Gneiss/biotite gneiss HORN Hornfels MARB Marble PHYL Phyllite SCHI Schist SESC Semi-schist SLAT Slate ULTU Ultramafic (type unknown) SERP Serpentine SETU Sedimentary (type unknown) BREC Breccia (non-volcanic) CACO Calcareous conglomerate CALU Calcareous (origin unknown) CASA Calcareous sandstone CASH Calcareous shale CASI Calcareous siltstone CHER Chert CONG Conglomerate DOLO Dolomite FANG Fanglomerate LIME Limestone MISE Mixed sedimentary SAND Sandstone SHAL Shale SILT Siltstone CLAL Clayey alluvium DUNE Sand dunes GLTI Glacial till, mixed origin, moraine GRAL Gravelly alluvium LALA Large landslide (unconsolidated) LOSS Loess MIAL Mixed alluvium SAAL Sandy alluvium SIAL Silty alluvium MIRT Mix of two or more rock types OTHE Other than on list ROCK SIZE Boulder > 60 cm diameter Stone 25 cm to 60 cm Cobble 7.5 cm to 25 cm Gravel 2 mm to 7.5 cm Fines < 2 mm DISTURBANCE CODES 01 Development 02 ORV activity 03 Agriculture 04 Grazing 05 Competition from exotics 06 Logging 07 Insufficient population/stand size 08 Altered flood/tidal regime 09 Mining 10 Hybridization 11 Groundwater pumping 12 Dam/inundation 13 Other 14 Surface water diversion 15 Road/trail construction/maint. 16 Biocides 17 Pollution 18 Unknown 19 Vandalism/dumping/litter 20 Foot traffic/trampling 21 Improper burning regime 22 Over collecting/poaching 23 Erosion/runoff 24 Altered thermal regime 25 Landfill 26 Degrading water quality 27 Wood cutting 28 Military operations 29 Recreational use (non ORV) 30 Nest parasitism 31 Non-native predators 32 Rip-rap, bank protection 33 Channelization (human caused) 34 Feral pigs 35 Burros 36 Rills 37 Phytogenic mounding 38 Sudden Oak Death ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Hendrys Creek Restoration Geomorphic and Vegetation Monitoring Report 1st Year Post Construction (2019) Los Gatos, California RWQCB ID #830357 Meredith Manning, Senior Planner Amanda Mills, Resource Management Specialist II Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 650-691-1200 ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report_3-24-20.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project History ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Data Collected .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.5 Monitoring Team ............................................................................................................................ 4 2. DATA SUMMARY FOR 1ST YEAR POST-CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................... 5 2.1 Rainfall ............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Stream Geomorphology Monitoring ........................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Creek and Tributary Realignments and Structure Removals .......................................... 5 2.2.2 Channel and Bank Stability Observations ......................................................................... 6 2.3 Vegetation Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 8 2.3.1 Restoration and Mitigation Plantings ................................................................................. 8 2.3.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.3 Vegetation Monitoring Results .......................................................................................... 13 2.3.4 Qualitative Vegetation Observations .............................................................................. 16 2.3.5 Native Species Colonization ............................................................................................. 16 2.3.6 Invasive Nonnative Species Observations ...................................................................... 17 2.3.7 Photo Monitoring and Qualitative Assessment at Planting Sites .................................. 19 2.3.8 Photo Monitoring at Invasive Plant Removal Sites ......................................................... 30 2.3.9 Wildlife Observations ......................................................................................................... 39 2.3.10 Year 1 Maintenance Activities ......................................................................................... 40 2.3.11 Recommended Future Actions ........................................................................................ 42 3. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 43 ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report_3-24-20.docx LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Geomorphic As-built Conditions Table 2. Native Plant Species List Table 3. Installed Quantities of Planting Materials by Location Table 4. Tree Removals and Replacement Ratios Table 5. Tree Removals and Replacement Ratios Table 6. Plant Health and Vigor Rating Scale Table 7. Baseline and June 2019 Vegetation Monitoring Summary Table 8. Baseline and June 2019 Vegetation Monitoring by Species Table 9. Native Species Observed within the Transects Table 10. Invasive Plant Species Observed within the Transects Table 11. Priority Invasive Species and Corrective Actions Table 12. Wildlife Species Observed from January 2019 through July 2019 LIST OF FIGURES (bound in back of document) Figure 1 Regional Map Figure 2 Location Map Figure 3 Project Overview Map Figure 4 Revegetation Areas Figure 5 Vegetation Monitoring Transect Locations Figure 6 Invasive Weeds Map Figure 7 Invasive Plant Removal Photo Point Monitoring Locations LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1 Geomorphic Observations 1 – Tributary 7 Upstream Photo 2 Geomorphic Observations 2 – Tributary 7 Downstream Photo 3 Geomorphic Observations 3 – Tributary 8 Upstream Photo 4 Geomorphic Observations 4 – Tributary 8 Downstream Photo 5 Transect 1: Confluence of Tributary 9/Hendrys Creek 3 – Riparian plantings Photo 6 Transect 2: Tributary 8 – Riparian plantings Photo 7 Transect 3: Tributary 7 – Riparian plantings Photo 8 Transect 4: Former Building Pad – Bat Boxes A upland plantings adjacent to Tributary 7 Photo 9 Transect 5: Former Building Pad – Bat Boxes B upland plantings adjacent to Tributary 7 ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report_3-24-20.docx Photo 10 Transect 6: Former Building Pad – Bat Boxes C upland plantings adjacent to Tributary 7 Photo 11 Transect 7: Tributary 6A – Upland and riparian plantings Photo 12 Transect 8: Tributary 6B – Upland and riparian plantings Photo 13 Transect 9: Tributary 6C – Upland and riparian plantings Photo 14 Transect 10: Hendrys Creek 1 – Riparian plantings Photo 15 Invasive Species Removal Site 1: Mixed invasive species Photo 16 Invasive Species Removal Site 2: Big leaf periwinkle (Vinca major) Photo 17 Invasive Species Removal Site 3: Robert’s geranium (Geranium robertianum) Photo 18 Invasive Species Removal Site 4: French broom (Genista monspessulana) Photo 19 Invasive Species Removal Site 5: French broom (Genista monspessulana) Photo 20 Invasive Species Removal Site 6: French Broom (Genista monspessulana) Photo 21 Invasive Species Removal Site 7: French broom (Genista monspessulana) Photo 22 Invasive Species Removal Site 8: French broom (Genista monspessulana) Photo 23 Invasive Species Removal Site 9: French broom (Genista monspessulana) Photo 24 Invasive Species Removal Site 10: French broom (Genista monspessulana) ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose The Midepeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) completed the Hendrys Creek Road Abandonment and Stream Restoration (Project) in 2018. This report represents results for geomorphic and vegetation monitoring conducted during the 1st year of post-construction monitoring. The Project made enhancements along ¾ miles of the watershed through removal of 14 in-stream structures (bridges, culverts and blockages) and removal of the road along Hendrys Creek and tributaries. The Project converted a road up the valley bottom to a trail for temporary access for use during the plant establishment and monitoring period. The creek and tributaries were recontoured in these impacted areas to restore the hydrologic connection of tributaries to Hendrys Creek, which had been lost or significantly altered as a result of road construction to support a former small community of homes, trailers, and other outbuildings within the canyon. These earthwork elements were intended to restore the geomorphic function of the watershed by reconnecting tributary channels to Hendrys Creek and to their own floodplains, reduce diversion potential at road/stream crossings and reduce the potential for erosion and subsequent sediment flow to Lexington Reservoir. This 5-year monitoring program began in 2019 and will wrap up in 2023. This monitoring program may be extended for an additional five years if vegetation performance criteria are not achieved by 2023. The annual monitoring report compiles the monitoring elements identified in the regulatory permits and described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Th monitoring effort is also an opportunity to identify any future adaptive management actions that may be implemented under the existing regulatory permits. The program includes monitoring channel development, creek bank and channel stability, riparian and upland plantings for growth and the site for overall habitat development. 1.2 Project History The Hendrys Creek Restoration Project is a fully discretionary effort intended to restore the geomorphic function of Hendrys Creek and tributaries and enhance the native riparian woodland and selected adjacent uplands through the removal of invasive species and installation of locally collected plant materials and seeds. The opportunity to pursue the restoration of Hendrys Creek has come about through collaboration among the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), Valley Water and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen). The property transfer to Midpen was complicated. Since 2010, Valley Water had been interested in partnering with Midpen to protect the Hendrys Creek watershed and the streamflow that it contributes to Lexington Reservoir. In 2011, POST entered into an agreement to purchase the property from a private citizen. Midpen worked with Valley Water and three permitting agencies (U.S. Army Corps of ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 2 Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board) to develop the terms and conditions of a Conservation Easement and Long-term Management Plan partnership to eventually purchase the property from POST. In August 2011, Midpen entered into a Lease and Management Agreement with POST for Midpen to manage the property until the agreement with the Valley Water was finalized. The Lease and Management Agreement went into effect at the time the property was transferred to POST and the Midpen has managed the property, which is closed to public use, since that time. Midpen owns fee title to the property and Valley Water has secured a Conservation Easement over the majority of the 117-acre property as compensatory mitigation for Valley Water’s Multi-Year Stream Maintenance Program (SMP). This stream channel restoration, riparian and upland planting and invasive plant species removal actions are above and beyond the compensatory mitigation that was secured by Valley Water through the purchase of the Conservation Easement. The restoration actions were separately permitted and the monitoring required under these permits is communicated in this report. 1.3 Project Description Hendrys Creek is a tributary to Los Gatos Creek that is impounded behind Lenihan Dam forming Lexington Reservoir located in Los Gatos, California (See Figure 1 – Regional Map). Hendrys Creek drains to the eastern side of the reservoir (See Figure 2 – Location Map). The Hendrys Creek Restoration Project made enhancements along ¾ miles of the watershed through removal of 14 in-stream structures (bridges, culverts and blockages) and removal of the road along Hendrys Creek and tributaries. The Project converted a valley-bottom vehicle road to a trail for temporary access for use during plant establishment. Unnatural sediment in the creek and tributaries were excavated in these impacted areas to restore the hydrologic connection of tributaries to Hendrys Creek (See Figure 3 – Project Overview Map). The Project removed invasive non-native plants from approximately 4.44 acres of the canyon. Approximately 0.33 acres of watershed specific, contract grown container riparian and upland plants and oak acorns and buckeye seeds were planted in areas where structures were removed. The Project installed erosion control measures and native grass seed over approximately 3.20 acres, including the former road and home site building pads (See Figure 4 – Revegetation Areas). The Hendrys Creek Restoration Project included the following actions: ➢ Implemented habitat enhancements along approximately ¾ miles (3,960 feet) of Hendrys Creek and tributaries within the 8.3 acres of freshwater wetland mitigation easement held by SCVWD. ➢ Permanently removed one (1) double culvert, three (3) bridges and one (1) sediment/debris jam within Hendrys Creek. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 3 ➢ Permanently removed three (3) failing ford crossings and three (3) culverts along the tributaries to Hendrys Creek and restore stream channels as close to its original configuration where feasible. ➢ Replaced one (1) bridge along Hendrys Creek and four (4) culverts along the tributaries to Hendrys Creek with seasonal rock fords. The seasonal fords will provide ATV access for native plant establishment, watering, weeding and project monitoring. ➢ Restored the hydrologic connection of the tributaries to Hendrys Creek using heavy equipment to remove fill material, or “daylight” the original stream channels. This action will restore the geomorphic function of the watershed because it will: a) reduce storm flow diversion potential at these locations where the road currently crosses the stream, b) reduce sediment discharge to the aquatic environment, c) reduce hydrologic connectivity of roads to streams by allowing tributary runoff to freely flow to Hendrys Creek instead of being diverted by the road network. ➢ Abandoned, ripped and restored the roadbed and the former buildings pads. Installed approximately 29 drainage dips every 75 to 100 feet along former road to reduce erosion to the creek. Installed erosion control measures and seeded approximately approximately 3.2 ripped acres with a native grass mix and oak acorns and buckeye seeds. ➢ Installed approximately 0.33 acres of riparian and upland native vegetation to reduce erosion, buffer the creek and increase the complexity of the habitat structure. ➢ Conducted an invasive plant species survey to map invasive plant species and plan removal that will be conducted prior to, during and after project implementation. ➢ Removed invasive French broom (Genista monspessulana), periwinkle (Vinca major), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Robert's geranium (Geranium robertianum) and other small patches of invasive vegetation from the road, former building sites and the creek bank locations where structures will be excavated and removed within the approximately 4.44-acre construction area. ➢ Maintained (weed and water, as necessary) and monitored the installed native plants and invasive species removal areas for three (3) years, replanting as needed to meet the minimum requirements identified in the individual resource agency permits (potentially up to ten years for the CDFW Section 1600 permit). Vegetation work in subsequent years will be completed under the District’s Integrated Pest Management Program. ➢ Monitored and implemented adaptive management measures to ensure the integrity of the stream channel work and water quality of the aquatic ecosystem. 1.4 Data Collected The monitoring team presents the following data in Chapter 2 of this report: • Qualitative assessments for channel development and bed and bank stability; and ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 4 • Percent survival of planted native vegetation at monitoring locations; and • Photographic documentation of vegetation growth at established photo monitoring locations; and • Photographic documentation of invasive plant removal sites at established photo monitoring locations. 1.5 Monitoring Team Construction inspection vegetation monitoring (baseline sampling) was performed by Grassroots Ecology’s Habitat Restoration Director Kristen Williams, Ecologist II Sara Witt, Project Lead Claire Grist, along with California Conservation Corps Watershed Stewards Program members Nina Orellana and Rebecca Cosmero on January 30, 2019 and February 6, 2019. Year 1 (Spring 2019) vegetation performance monitoring was performed by Ecologist II Sara Witt, Project Lead Claire Grist, along with California Conservation Corps Watershed Stewards Program members Nina Orellana, Rebecca Cosmero, Emma Lewis, and Gabe Elliott on June 10, 2019 and June 15, 2019. Geomorphic monitoring was conducted by Engineering Geologist Timothy Best throughout 2018. Midpen staff members Meredith Manning, Senior Planner; Bryan Apple, Capital Fields Project Manager; Michael Gorman, Capital Fields Project Manager; Amanda Mills, Resource Management Specialist II; and Aaron Peth, Planner III have conducted monitoring visits throughout 2019. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 5 2. DATA SUMMARY FOR 1ST YEAR POST-CONSTRUCTION Chapter 2 presents results from monitoring conducted during the 1st year of the projected 5-year post- construction monitoring period. Prior to discussion of results we provide a brief review of the hydrologic conditions observed during water year 2019 (WY20191). The organization of Chapter 2 reflects Midpen’s Hendrys Creek Adaptive Management, Monitoring and Reporting Program (2018). 2.1 Rainfall Hendrys Creek is a spring-fed perennial stream that drains an approximately 710-acre watershed. Hendrys Creek flows into Lexington Reservoir. WY2019 was notable as an average year following a dry year in WY2018 (California Department of Water Resources, 2019). The precipitation record at the Santa Clara Valley Water Districts’ ALERT2 system station #6138 Banjo Point on the eastern side of Lexington Reservoir indicates that cumulative rainfall for WY2019 was 46.96 inches which is average rainfall for the valley. However, it was 223% of rainfall recorded in WY2018. There were several significant rainfall events in January and February 2019 that resulted in notable runoff events. 2.2 Stream Geomorphology Monitoring 2.2.1 Creek and Tributary Realignments and Structure Removals Hendrys Creek as-built conditions were documented in November 2018 (See Table 1- Geomorphic As- built Conditions). Only two notable changes resulted during construction. Tributary 7 was excavated approximately 15 feet upstream of the plans as a result of erosion that occurred in a prior storm year. The most downstream bridge crossing of Hendrys Creek (H5) was left in place to minimize impacts to the channel. It is anticipated that this wooden bridge will degrade and fail in the future. 1 A water year is defined by the period October 1st of the prior year through September 30th of the named year. For example, water year 2019 is defined by the period October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019. 2 The historical precipitation record can be accessed at: http://alert.valleywater.org/historicdata/pgi_historicdata_setup.php ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 6 Table 1 – Geomorphic As-built Conditions 2.2.2 Channel and Bank Stability Observations There were modest changes to the channel bed and banks from erosive flows over the course of WY2019. During an April 15 site visit it was noted that channel bed of Tributaries 7 and 8 had experienced some erosion and downcutting in a few small locations along the channel banks. In Tributary 7 the rock grade checks worked to reduce the erosion forces of the runoff but were slightly exposed as a result (See Photos 1 and 2 – Geomorphic Observations). The channel bank erosion caused resulted in the loss of plants installed along the edge of the channel. The realigned Tributary 8 collects flows from both the short Tributary 9, which crosses a former building pad, and the larger Tributary 8 drainage also showed modest downcutting as flows drop off the former building pad and access driveway and some minor channel bed erosion toward the confluence with Hendrys Creek (See Photos 3 and 4 – Geomorphic Observations). These changes were not unexpected given the winter storm events and recently realigned tributary channels. As the new riparian plantings ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 7 grow, the root systems will help to anchor these realigned channels. The annuals and perennials that sprout from the installed native seed mixes and the on-site seed bank will help to minimize the impact of rain on freshly realigned channel beds and banks. Photos 1 and 2 – Tributary 7 upstream the drainage flows along a former building site (left) and downstream it cross the former road and flows to the confluence with Hendrys Creek. Some minor erosion and down cutting is noted after the first winter. Photos 3 and 4 – Tributary 8 and 9 flows combine above the rock grade check (left) and then flow to Hendrys Creek (right). Modest erosion is noted along the banks of the tributary. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 8 2.3 Vegetation Monitoring 2.3.1 Restoration and Mitigation Plantings Midpen planned to install 950 contract-grown trees, shrubs and perennials throughout the project site and contract-grew an additional 20% of the riparian and upland plants to ensure sufficient plant material in the event of poor germination, changes in plans, plant loss prior to installation and replanting during the monitoring period (See Table 2 – Native Plant Species List). Midpen opted to install the majority of the excess plant material to assist with the revegetation efforts and to minimize the need to replace plants during the monitoring period. Midpen installed 1,141 or 20% more contract- grown, watershed specific trees, shrubs and perennials than identified in the project permits. Nineteen species were contract grown container plants and three additional species were installed from nuts and acorns totally 22 different restoration plant species. Midpen installed 154 planting basins containing buckeye nuts and oak acorns throughout the upland sites disturbed by the demolition and removal of buildings and roads. All of these basins were installed with tree shelters to minimize herbivory. The entire roadbed was ripped in a single direction to a depth of 8 inches to facilitate the restoration of the land. Midpen also seeded approximately two acres of the ripped road and disturbed upland areas with 80 pounds of native, local “sunny” seed mix and approximately one acre of the disturbed shady and riparian areas with 40 pounds of native, local “riparian” seed mix (See Figure 4 – Revegetation Areas). The quantity of container plants and acorn/nut planting basins is provided in Table 3. The vegetation monitoring program evaluates the constructed conditions compared to subsequent growth of the vegetation and development of the habitat at ten photo points and vegetation monitoring areas at the end of the spring each growing season. Conditions at completion of construction activities were documented in winter 2019. Monitoring will be conducted for five years. This report covers Year 1 of the monitoring period. This vegetation monitoring program includes data on qualitative health and vigor of the installed plant material and observations of native species recruitment and invasive species incursions into the restored habitats. This monitoring report notes past year maintenance activities, recommended future maintenance actions and other pertinent information related to the establishment of the habitats. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 9 Table 2 – Native Plant Species List Contract Grown Native Plant Species Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple Acmisphon glaber var. glaber Deerweed Aesculus californica* Buckeye Alnus rhombifolia White Alder Artemisia douglasiana Sagebush Artemesia californica Mugwort Baccharis pilularis Coyote Bush Ceanothus thyrsiflorua Blue Blossom Corylus cornuta var. californica Hazelnut Frangula californica Coffeeberry Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Juncus patens Gray Rush Lonicera hispidula Hairy Honeysuckle Quercus agrifolia* Coast Live Oak Quercus chrysolepis* Canyon Live Oak Rubus leucodermis Western Raspberry Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Rubus ursinus Pacific Blackberry Sanicula crassicaulis Snakeroot Scrophularia californica Beeplant Stachys bullata Hedgenettle Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry * Planted from acorn or nut. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 10 Table 3 – Installed Quantities of Planting Materials by Location Planting Locations Location Quantity of Container Plants Quantity of Acorn/Nut Planting Basins Hendry Creek 1 168 Tributary 6 225 Tributary 7 410 Tributary 8 169 Riparian ‘Amanda’s Spot’ 125 Hendrys Creek 4 44 Upper Bat Boxes – Former Building Pad 21 Former ‘Golf Course’ 72 Former Building Pan on Tributary 4 11 Lower Bat Boxes – Former Building Pad 50 Total Installed Vegetation 1,141 154 Midpen made every effort to retain trees and, as a result, the actual tree removals were fewer than those originally included with the DFW Streambed Alteration Agreement application. Of the trees and shrubs installed with the restoration, 76 of the trees are identified as mitigation plantings under the conditions of the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement. Native trees were replaced at 3:1 for trees 3-6 inches dbh and 6:1 for trees greater than 6 inches dbh. A single 4-inch coast live (Quercus agrifolia) was removed and mitigated at 3:1 and is included in the tree total. Non- native trees greater than 3 inches dbh were replaced at 1:1 with native trees. Replacement mitigation tree quantities were calculated based upon the actual tree removals. Tree mitigation ratios are applied to the tree removals listed in Table 3. Seventeen native trees and 4 non- native trees were removed during the Hendrys Creek Restoration project resulting in 76 mitigation trees using DFW mitigation ratios. The native tree species removed include a single live oak, 6 big leaf maple and 10 California bay (See Table 4 – Tree Removals and Replacement Ratios). Replacement trees will include big leaf maple and white alder container plants and live oak acorn and buckeye nut basins. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 11 Table 4 – Tree Removals and Replacement Ratios Site Native Tree Species # Trees Remove d Trunk Diameter Replacement Ratio Mitigation Trees H1 Umbellularia californica 7 3”, 4”, 4”, 5”, 6”, 6”, 6” 3:1 21 Quercus agrifolia 1 4” 3:1 3 H2 Lingustrum sp. Privet 1 Multi-trunk 3”+2” 1:1 1 H4 Acer macrophyllum 1 4” 3:1 3 Umbellularia californica 1 5” 3:1 3 T4 Ficus microcarpa, Fig 1 Multi-trunk 3”+3”+2”+2”+ 2”+2”+2”+1”+ 1”+1”+1”+1” 1:1 1 T6 Acer macrophyllum 1 22” 6:1 6 T7A Acer macrophyllum 1 Multi-trunk 6”+7”+7”+9” 6:1 6 Prunus sp. 1 3” 1:1 1 T7-1 and T7-2 Acer macrophyllum 1 Multi-trunk 6”+8”+10” 6:1 6 Prunus sp. 1 6” 1:1 1 T8 Umbellularia californica 1 Multi-trunk 4”+6”+6”+7”+9”+12” 6:1 6 T12 Acer macrophyllum 2 6”, 9” 6:1 12 Umbellularia californica 1 Multi-trunk 6”+7”+8” 6:1 6 TREE MITGATION TALLIES 17 Total Native Trees Removed Replacement Quantity 72 4 Total Non-Native Trees Removed Replacement Quantity 4 Of the 1,141 trees and shrubs installed with the restoration, 63 of the shrubs will be identified as mitigation shrubs under the conditions of the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement. Native shrub species are to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio per the DFW Streambed Alteration Agreement. Replacement mitigation shrub quantities were calculated based upon the actual shrub removals. Shrub mitigation ratios were applied to the shrub species listed in Table 4. Eighteen native shrubs were removed during the Hendrys Creek Restoration project resulting in 63 mitigation shrubs using DFW ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 12 mitigation ratios. The native shrub species removed include thimbleberry, Pacific blackberry, poison oak, California sage and stinging nettle (See Table 5 – Shrub Removals and Replacement Ratios). Replacement shrubs included a variety of species as indicated in Table 2. Table 5 – Shrub Removals and Replacement Ratios Site Native Shrub Species # Shrubs Removed Shrub Area Replacement Ratio Mitigation Shrubs H1 Rubus parviflorus 1 stand counted as 3 plants 5’ x 10’ stand 3:1 9 H3 Rubus parviflorus 1 stand counted as 2 plants 4’ x 8’ stand 3:1 6 T4 Rubus ursinus 1 3:1 3 T5 Rubus ursinus 1 3:1 3 T6 Rubus ursinus 1 3:1 3 Toxicodendron diversilobum 1 3:1 3 T7 Artemisia californica 5 1’ x 2’ 3:1 15 Rubus ursinus 2 3:1 6 T8 Rubus ursinus 4 3:1 12 Urtica dioica 1 3:1 3 Shrub Tally 18 Total Native Shrubs Removed Replacement Quantity 63 2.3.2 Methodology The vegetation monitoring protocols for this project is outlined in Section 3.2.3. of the Hendrys Creek Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (November 2018). As-built vegetation monitoring for baseline conditions was performed on January 30, 2019 and February 6, 2019. Year 1 monitoring was performed at the end of the spring season on June 10, 2019 and June 15, 2019. Future monitoring will be conducted annually in the spring. The vegetation monitoring included the following steps: ● Sampling areas were selected by placing ten 25-foot transects in the project area. The transects were selected to capture a representation of each planting area and included both riparian and upland habitats. Some larger planting areas contain multiple transects. T-posts were placed to mark the start and end of each transect and left in place for use in future monitoring years. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 13 Transect locations are documented in a Google map, linked here (See Figure 5 – Vegetation Monitoring Transect Locations). ● A single, random point along each transect was selected to use as the center point for a 10-foot diameter sampling circle. This number was selected using a random number generator between 5 and 20, so that the extent of the circle would not extend past the 25-foot long transect line. ● Woody plants within the 10-foot diameter circle plot around the selected point were assessed for plant health and vigor and measured for height. Plant health and vigor ratings were assigned based on the condition of the foliage, wood, and root crown (See Table 6 – Plant Vigor Rating Scale). ○ Note that all woody plants, including plants that were installed by the project and those that naturally recruited into the project area, were counted in the assessment. If the woody plants were very small (under 0.5 inches tall), health and vigor score was not given and height was not measured. ● The health and vigor score was used to calculate percent survival for each species. Plants scoring ≥3 were counted as surviving. ● Other native and non-native species observed in each plot were also recorded and counted, but not given health and vigor or height measurements. ● The Year 1 performance monitoring used the same transects as the construction inspection (baseline) monitoring. However, new 10-foot diameter circles along the transects were selected at random. Table 6 – Plant Vigor Rating Scale 2.3.3 Vegetation Monitoring Results Plant vigor and height were recorded for trees, shrubs and woody perennial plants within the sampled areas. At the time of baseline sampling, plant vigor within sampled areas was strong with an overall average of 3.84 on a scale of 0-4, with 4 being the healthiest score. Survival rate, defined as plants scoring ≥3 on the vigor scale, at baseline sampling was 98.78%. Year 1 sampling found overall survival of 97.02% and an overall average plant vigor score of 3.82. Due to the short period of time between the two monitoring sessions, not much change was expected. Spring of 2019 was a good rainfall year, with ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 14 storms providing measurable rain at least once a month through May (See Table 7 – Baseline and June 2019 Vegetation Monitoring Summary). Table 7 – Baseline and June 2019 Vegetation Monitoring Summary Baseline Monitoring - Jan./Feb. 2019 Year 1 Monitoring - June 2019 Total # Plants Mean Plant Survival Mean Plant Vigor Total # Plants Mean Plant Survival Mean Plant Vigor 82 98.78% 3.84 127 98.78% 3.82 Table 8 below summarizes the data collected for all woody plant species observed in the sampling areas for the baseline monitoring session (Jan./Feb. 2019) and for the Year 1 monitoring session (June 2019). For each species, the total number of individual plants observed, the percent surviving (vigor rating of 3 or greater), mean plant vigor score, and mean plant height (in inches) are shown. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 15 Table 8 – Baseline and June 2019 Vegetation Monitoring by Species Scientific Name Common Name Baseline Monitoring - Jan./Feb. 2019 Year 1 Monitoring - June 2019 # Plants found in Transects 1-10 % of Plants with Vigor ≥3 Mean Plant Vigor Mean Plant Height (inches) # Plants found in Transects 1-10 % of Plants with Vigor ≥3 Mean Plant Vigor Mean Plant Height (inches) Acer macrophyllum Big leaf maple 7 86% 3.43 0.42 in. 47* 100% 3.95 2.27 in. Acmispon glaber Deerweed 2 100% 4 3.0 in. 2 100% 4 11.04 in. Alnus rhombifolia White alder 3 100% 4 3.32 in. 0 0 0 0 Artemisia californica California sagebrush 5 100% 4 11.04 in. 5 100% 4 8.92 in. Artemisia douglasiana California mugwort 6 100% 4 3.48 in. 1 100% 4 9.96 in. Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush 0 0 0 0 1 100% 4 2.4 in. Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut 0 0 0 0 4 100% 4 6.87 in. Diplacus aurantiacus Sticky monkeyflower 9 100% 3.78 7.11 in. 9 100% 3.33 6.52 in. Frangula californica California coffeeberry 4 100% 4 2.94 in. 1 100% 4 5.0 in. Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon 4 100% 3.75 9.78 in. 4 50% 2.75 10.73 in. Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray 1 100% 4 12.24 in. 4 100% 4 6.27 in. Lonicera hispidula Pink honeysuckle 0 0 0 0 4 100% 4 5.86 in. Monardella villosa Coyote mint 3 100% 4 2.52 in. 7 100% 3.43 6.0 in. Phacelia imbricata Imbricate phacelia 5 100% 3.6 3.79 in. 4 100% 3.5 7.29 in. Physocarpus capitatus Ninebark 2 100% 4 2.76 in. 1 100% 4 9.0 in. Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak 0 0 0 0 3** 100% 4 6.0 in. Rubus ursinus California blackberry 13 100% 4 2.04 in. 17 100% 4 3.0 in. Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea Blue elderberry 4 100% 3.33 1.70 in. 1 100% 4 27.6 in. Scrophularia californica California bee plant 2 100% 4 3.96 in. 2 100% 3.5 25.02 in. Stachys bullata California hedgenettle 4 100% 4 2.23 in. 5 100% 4 7.64 in. Symphoricarpos albus Common snowberry 7 100% 4 0.51 in 5 75% 3.75 10.74 in. Umbellularia californica California bay 1** 100% 4 2.5 in. 0 0 0 0 *Many of the big leaf maples appear to be volunteering into the site. Of the 47 plants counted, 3 were 15-18 inches in height, 4 were between 3-7 inches tall, and 40 were under 3 inches tall. **Coast live oak and California bay were not installed as container plants; counted plants are volunteers. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 16 2.3.4 Qualitative Vegetation Observations Overall, the plants installed in the planting zones are healthy, with some losses incurred due to high flows in the winter. Natural recruitment of both native and non-native vegetation is also occurring throughout the project site. 2.3.5 Native Species Colonization Sixteen native species were observed colonizing the project site as in Year 1. These plants were observed within the 10-foot diameter circles sampled at each transect. Two California native seed mixes (sunny and shady mixes) were installed in the area as erosion control. The California brome (Bromus carinatus) germinating in the transects is likely from this seeding effort. All other species are believed to be colonizing the site from the native seed bank in Hendrys Creek canyon (See Table 9 – Native Species Observed within the Transects). Table 9 – Native Species Observed within the Transects Scientific Name Common Name Acer macrophyllum Big leaf maple Acmispon americanus American bird's foot trefoil Acmispon glaber Deerweed Bromus carinatus California brome Claytonia perfoliata Miner's lettuce Clarkia unguiculata Elegant clarkia Elymus glaucus Blue wild rye Galium aparine Common bedstraw Lupinus bicolor Bicolored lupine Madia sp. Madia Madia elegans Common madia Nemophila sp. Nemophila Osmorhiza brachypoda California sweet cicely Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific sanicle Umbellularia californica California bay ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 17 2.3.6 Invasive Nonnative Species Observations A total of 30 nonnative invasive species were observed within Hendrys Creek canyon during the Year 1 monitoring period (See Table 10 – Invasive Species Observed within the Transects). Of the observed species three are rated as high, ten as moderate, eight as limited and nine of the nonnative species are not rated species according to the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). Significant effort has been made to eradicate invasive nonnative species from the canyon (See Figure 6 – Invasive Weeds Map). See Section 2.3.8 for invasive plant removal monitoring summary. The definitions of the Cal-IPC rating are provided below: • High – These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment. Most are widely distributed ecologically. • Moderate – These species have substantial and apparent—but generally not severe—ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, though establishment is generally dependent upon ecological disturbance. Ecological amplitude and distribution may range from limited to widespread. • Limited – These species are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there was not enough information to justify a higher score. Their reproductive biology and other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness. Ecological amplitude and distribution are generally limited, but these species may be locally persistent and problematic. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 18 Table 10 – Invasive Species Observed within the Transects Scientific Name Common Name California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) Rating Anthriscus caucalis Bur chervil Avena fatua Wild oat Moderate Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Moderate Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess Limited Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Moderate Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle High Cynosurus echinatus Hedgehog dogtail grass Moderate Festuca myuros Rattail fescue Moderate Festuca perennis Italian ryegrass Moderate Genista monspessulana French broom High Geranium dissectum Cutleaf geranium Limited Geranium molle Crane's bill geranium Geranium robertianum Robert's geranium Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley Moderate Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat’s-ear Limited Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Malva sp. Non-native mallow Medicago polymorpha Burclover Limited Melilotus indica Yellow sweet clover Melissa officianalis Lemon balm Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup Moderate Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbitsfoot grass Limited Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry High Rumex crispus Curly dock Limited Stellaria media Chickweed Stipa miliacea var. miliacea Smilo grass Limited Torilis arvensis Field hedge parsley Moderate Tradescantia fluminensis Small leaf spiderwort Trifolium hirtum Rose clover Limited Vinca major Big leaf periwinkle Moderate ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 19 2.3.7 Photo Monitoring and Qualitative Assessment at Planting Sites Photo monitoring of riparian and upland planting areas was conducted for the Year 1 monitoring period. Ten locations were identified in April 2019 as native revegetation photo monitoring points to assess changes in habitat over time. Photos will be taken at these ten points annually in the spring. The photo monitoring points correspond with the ten vegetation monitoring transects and include a full range of habitat characteristics seen throughout the project area including: riparian plantings at culvert and bridge removal locations, riparian plantings at tributary realignment locations, upland plantings adjacent to tributary realignments, seeded areas of abandoned and ripped roadbed and/or former building pads, seeded riparian areas, and sites treated for the removal of invasive plants. Photo 5 Transect 1: Confluence of Tributary 9/Hendrys Creek 3 – Riparian plantings Photo 6 Transect 2: Tributary 8 – Riparian plantings Photo 7 Transect 3: Tributary 7 – Riparian plantings Photo 8 Transect 4: Former Building Pad – Bat Boxes A upland plantings adjacent to Tributary 7 Photo 9 Transect 5: Former Building Pad – Bat Boxes B upland plantings adjacent to Tributary 7 Photo 10 Transect 6: Former Building Pad – Bat Boxes C upland plantings adjacent to Tributary 7 Photo 11 Transect 7: Tributary 6A – Upland and riparian plantings Photo 12 Transect 8: Tributary 6B – Upland and riparian plantings Photo 13 Transect 9: Tributary 6C – Upland and riparian plantings Photo 14 Transect 10: Hendrys Creek 1 – Riparian plantings ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 20 Photo 5 - Transect 1: Confluence of Tributary 9/Hendrys Creek 3 – Riparian Plantings (37.17182, -121.96909) (Photo May 2019) Photopoint 1 was taken at the confluence of Tributary 9/Hendrys Creek 3. It is a riparian planting area and is the most downstream planting site. As of May 2019, California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) are alive but not showing much growth. Thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) and white bark raspberry (Rubus leucodermis) are vigorous and large. Tubed big leaf maples (Acer macrophyllum) are 12+ inches tall. Trees planted and tubed at the bottom of the bank, closest to the creek such as white alders (Alnus rhombifolia) appear to be dead. Invasive big leaf periwinkle (Vinca major) is encroaching in the planting area. This planting area is composed of gravel soil and the bank has a steep incline. Additionally, this planting area is the entry point to access all upstream project sites, and therefore experiences higher levels of disturbance than any other planting areas. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 21 Photo 6 - Transect 2: Tributary 8 – Riparian Plantings (37.1719, -121.96868) (Photo May 2019) Photopoint 2 was taken at Tributary 8, where, as of May 2019, installed native plantings are large and vigorous. Thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) and ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) are the species that are doing the best at this location. California bee plant (Scrophularia californica) is large but getting eaten by insects. Natural recruitment of white bark raspberry (Rubus leucodermis) and deerweed (Acmispon glaber) is occuring in the riparian and upland habitats. Seeded native grasses are beginning to germinate. Top of bank plants such as California mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) are looking healthy. Invasive Robert’s geranium (Geranium robertianum) and lemon balm (Melissa officinalis) exist along the shaded edges and may begin to encroach into the planting area if not removed. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 22 Photo 7 - Transect 3: Tributary 7 – Riparian Plantings (37.17205, -121.96855) (Photo May 2019) Photopoint 3 was taken at Tributary 7, which is a large riparian planting area. Winter storms from 2019 washed out nearly all plants that were planted in the bottom of the creek bed and cut a channel in the tributary exposing some buried trash. Only one white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), pictured to the left, survived the storm event, but planted gray rush (Juncus patens) along the tributary bank were observed to be healthy. Most plants installed in the lower bank were observed to be healthy but a few have died. Natural recruitment of California mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) was occurring mostly in the shaded areas on the edges of the planting site, and in general, plants under the shade of the existing mature big leaf maple were vigorous. Native grasses have been coming up from seed. Invasive plants observed in this area were dominated by Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) in the shaded areas and rose clover (Trifolium hirtum) in the sunny areas. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 23 Photo 8 - Transect 4: Former Building Pad - Bat Boxes A upland adjacent to Tributary 7 (37.17245, -121.96859) (Photo May 2019) Photopoint 4 was taken in a large upland planting area adjacent to Tributary 7. Sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) were observed to be healthy and vigorous. Thick straw mulch rings around the plants seem to be helping to retain moisture. Natural recruitment of deerweed (Acmispon glaber), American bird's foot trefoil (Acmispon americanus) and Nemophila (Nemophila sp.) was present. Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) did not appear to be very healthy, with leaves that have turned brown and crispy. French broom (Genista monspessulana) seedlings (under 1” tall) were coming up in abundance as well as rose clover (Trifolium hirtum) and some Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus). California live oak acorn planting basins in this area have not had success sprouting. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 24 Photo 9 - Transect 5: Former Building Pad - Bat Boxes B upland adjacent to Tributary 7 (37.17244, -121.96846) (Photo May 2019) Photopoint 5 was also taken in the large upland planting area. Qualitative assessment is the same as Photopoint 4. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 25 Photo 10 - Transect 6: Former Building Pad – Bat Boxes C upland plantings adjacent to Tributary 7 (37.1724, -121.96834) (May 2019) Photopoint 6 was also taken in the large upland planting area. Qualitative assessment is the same as Photopoint 4. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 26 Photo 11 - Transect 7: Tributary 6A – Upland and riparian plantings (37.17223, -121.96781) (May 2019) Photopoint 7 was taken on Tributary 6A, which is a mixed riparian and upland planting area. Upland species coyote mint (Monardella villosa), imbricate phacelia (Phacelia imbricata), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) were observed to be thriving. Blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) were also healthy in this planting area. Riparian plantings above the wattles appeared healthy, but plants installed below the wattles in the rocky gravel creek bed were not thriving. Additionally, winter storm events washed out many of the plants installed within the streambed. Natural recruitment of oak saplings just above the wattles was present, as well as germination of seeded grasses. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 27 Photo 12 - Transect 8: Tributary 6B – Upland and riparian plantings (37.17238, -121.9676) Photopoint 8 was also taken at Tributary 6B. Qualitative assessment is the same as Photopoint 7. (May 2019) Blue elderberry showing rapid growth at Tributary 6B. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 28 Photo 13 - Transect 9: Tributary 6C – Upland and riparian plantings (37.17229, -121.96749) (May 2019) Photopoint 9 was also taken at Tributary 6C. Qualitative assessment is the same as Photopoint 7. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 29 Photo 14 - Transect 10: Hendrys Creek H1 – Riparian plantings (37.17221, -121.96349) (May 2019) Photopoint 10 was taken at the riparian planting area furthest upstream where two culverts were removed. Installed plants in this area were alive and healthy. Blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea), white bark raspberry (Rubus leucodermis), and thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) appeared tall and vigorous. Gray rush (Juncus patens) along the creek edge were thriving. Some native grasses came up from seed, and natural recruitment of common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) and thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) were present. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 30 2.3.8 Photo Monitoring at Invasive Plant Removal Sites In addition to the ten native plant revegetation photo monitoring locations, ten photo points were identified to monitor invasive plant removal within the project area. Monitoring of the ten invasive plant points began in 2017 (See Figure 7 – Invasive Plant Removal Photo Point Monitoring Locations). The ten locations were chosen based on the presence of the four priority invasive plants of the project: French broom (Genista monspessulana), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), big leaf periwinkle (Vinca major), and Robert’s geranium (Geranium robertianum). Manual removal of these species, plus other identified species as part of the adaptive management plan, have been ongoing since 2017 across approximately 4.4 acres. French broom was a primary focus of the 2017 efforts; many of the abandoned building pads and roads were highly impacted by this invasive plant. Following is a list of invasive plant species observed during the monitoring periods in the project area and corrective actions that are ongoing or planned (See Table 11 – Priority Invasive Species and Corrective Actions). Table 11 – Priority Invasive Species and Corrective Actions Scientific Name Common Name Actions Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Hand removal Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle Hand removal; existing stand is still limited in extent Genista monspessulana* French broom Manual removal of mature plants with weed wrenches prior to seed set (Feb-Apr) Geranium robertianum* Robert’s geranium Covered in straw; grubbing in spring prior to seed set Melissa officinalis Lemon balm Hand removal Rubus armeniacus* Himalayan blackberry Hand removal Stipa miliacea Smilo grass Hand removal Tradescantia fluminensis Small leaf spiderwort Hand removal, dispose off-site Vinca major* Big leaf periwinkle Hand removal *Invasive species targeted in Long-term Management Plan (2015). ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 31 Photo 15 – Invasive Species Removal Site 1: Mixed invasive species (left April 2017, right July 2019) Site 1 is the most downstream invasive plant removal area and is located at an old building pad across the first bridge. Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), big leaf periwinkle (Vinca major), and French broom (Genista monspessulana) were all present at the site. Native plant recruitment was limited in this area, but mature native trees and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) were present. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 32 Photo 16 – Invasive Species Removal Site 2: Big leaf periwinkle (Vinca major) (left April 2017, right May 2019) Site 2 was composed of large dense patches of big leaf periwinkle along the roadside and down to the creek. Annual invasive species Robert’s geranium was present during the spring. Big leaf periwinkle was hand pulled from site 2 and native grasses were seeded and mulched with straw where the road was ripped. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 33 Photo 17 – Invasive Species Removal Site 3: Robert’s geranium (Geranium robertianum) (left April 2017, right May 2019) Site 3 was primarily comprised of Robert’s geranium. The area was seeded with native grass and mulched with straw after construction. The native grasses have been competing with the Robert’s geranium, but Robert’s geranium was still dominant at this site. Photo 18 – Invasive Species Removal Site 4: French broom (Genista monspessulana) (left June 2017, right May 2019) Site 4 is an old roadway that was previously infested with French broom. Mature French broom has been removed, but new seedlings has since begun to germinate within the ripped roadway. This area was also seeded with native grasses and mulched with straw post construction. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 34 Photo 19 – Invasive Species Removal Site 5: French broom (Genista monspessulana) (left June 2017, right May 2019) Site 5 is another roadway that was previously infested with French broom. Mature French broom has been removed from the site with the exception of a few plants inaccessible to SJCC crews due to steep slopes. With the removal of the French broom, Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) has begun to colonize the area. Seeded native grasses were also present. Photo 20 – Invasive Species Removal Site 6: French Broom (Genista monspessulana) (left June 2017, right July 2019) Site 6 is a roadway that was previously infested with French broom. Mature plants were removed in 2017 and 2018. Some young French broom was present, but the sunny, dry area has kept germination to a minimum. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 35 Photo 21 – Invasive Species Removal Site 7: French broom (Genista monspessulana) (left February 2017, right May 2019) Site 7 is a mixed sunny and shaded area that was once a building pad. All mature French broom (Genista monspessulana) has been removed, but a flush of seedlings germinated in newly opened space. Additionally, large dense patches of Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) were present as well as scattered individuals of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) in the sunny section. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 36 Photo 22 – Invasive Species Removal Site 8: French broom (Genista monspessulana) (left February 2017, right May 2019) Site 8 is an old roadway where mature French broom was removed. Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and French broom seedlings were observed germinating where large French broom was removed. Native grasses started to establish and a large stand of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) was present at the site. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 37 Photo 23 – Invasive Species Removal Site 9: French broom (Genista monspessulana) (left February 2017, right May 2019) Site 9, also called the “golf course,” is an expansive open area with compacted soil. Large French broom that lined the perimeter has been removed, but thick patches of young French broom were found along the edges. This area was dense with non-native and invasive species including Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), rose clover (Trifolium hirtum) and annual grasses. Acorn and buckeye basins were installed in fall 2018. The young oak and buckeye trees growing from seed were found to be alive and healthy with many 5” to 7” tall. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 38 Photo 24 – Invasive Species Removal Site 10: French broom (Genista monspessulana) (left February 2017, right May 2019) Site 10 is a wooded roadway where French broom was previously removed 2017 and 2018. Individual mature French broom plants were still present in inaccessible areas off the road, and seedlings, approximately 3” tall have germinated where French broom was removed. California buckeye sapling inside a tree tube at the “golf course.” The majority of tree tubes, where buckeye nuts were planted in fall 2018, contained healthy saplings between 6” to 12“ tall. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 39 2.3.9 Wildlife Observations In Year 1 the following animal species were observed during the monitoring site visits conducted from January 2019 through July 2019 (See Table 12 – Wildlife Species Observed between January 2019 and July 2019). Table 12 – Wildlife Species Observed between January 2019 and July 2019 Invertebrates Apis mellifera Western honeybee Boisea rubrolineata Western boxelder bug Bombus vosnesenskii Yellow-faced bumblebee Ceratina sp. Small carpenter bee Coenonympha tullia Common ringlet Euphydryas chalcedona Variable checkerspot Glaucopsyche lygdamus Silvery blue Hippodamia convergens Convergent lady beetle Hylephila phyleus Fiery skipper Limenitis lorquini Lorquin's admiral Papilio rutulus Western tiger swallowtail Plebejus acmon Acmon blue Rhaphidophoridae Camel cricket Vertebrates Batrachoseps attenuatus Slender salamander Lampropeltis californiae California king snake Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey Memphitis memphitis Striped skunk Taricha torosa California newt ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 40 2.3.10 Year 1 Maintenance Activities The restoration plantings and invasive species removal sites continued to be maintained by Grassroots Ecology, contract native plant specialists working under the direction of the Midpen staff. Grassroots Ecology has been assisted by the San Jose Conservation Corps (SJCC). Maintenance activities included weeding, mulching and pruning and continued invasive species removal. Grassroots Ecology began invasive species removal in 2017, native seed collection, contract growing and plant installation occurred in 2018 and maintenance activities continue through this monitoring period. The details of their work are identified below in chronological order. Dec 13, 2018 Staff inspected and completed all caging of plants at planting sites. January 7, 2019 Staff assessed the site after a recent storm event. Cages located within the tributary were cleared because they were filling with leaves and sediment. Several California newts (Taricha torosa) were spotted across the project site. January 17, 2019 Staff assessed the planting sites after another heavy storm event. Caging located within tributaries 6-8 were removed as most were filled or toppled with sediment and debris. Slender salamanders (Batrachoseps attenuatus) were spotted amongst straw bales and California newts were present throughout the project area. March 15, 2019 Staff assessed the work site for invasive species and prioritized areas for targeted removal by SJCC. Large numbers of western boxelder bugs (Boisea rubrolineata) were spotted in the tree tubes, especially at the golf course and secondarily at the lower bat box area with buckeyes. April 4, 2019 Staff conducted routine maintenance and invasive removal at the site. April 15, 2019 Grassroots Ecology led SJCC crews to remove non-native invasive species across the project site. Teams targeted the removal of French broom (Genista monspessulana), big leaf periwinkle (Vinca major), and Robert’s geranium (Geranium robertianum). Scattered patches of seedlings and flowering French broom were removed across the “golf course”. Dense stands of big leaf periwinkle (Vinca major) along creek and tributary banks were removed. Large patches of Robert’s geranium along the upper banks of ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 41 Hendrys Creek were covered with remaining bales of straw to suppress further growth. Removal of non- native invasive species was documented and mapped using CalFlora Pro. May 1, 2019 Staff performed routine maintenance across the project site and conducted an assessment of site conditions. A dead California king snake about two feet in length was observed near the bat boxes located west of tributary 7. Staff removed French broom (Genista monspessulana) and big leaf periwinkle (Vinca major) along ripped roadbeds past the golf course and near H2. May 9, 2019 Grassroots Ecology staff led teams of SJCC members to remove French broom (Genista monspessulana) at the most downstream building pad, and big leaf periwinkle (Vinca major) along creek. Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) was removed from around the acorn and buckeye basins near the bat boxes. Teams distributed remaining straw bales along ripped roads throughout site, targeting stands of Robert’s geranium for suppression. A small snake approximately 4” in length, possibly a striped racer, was spotted at the end of site. May 16, 2019 Staff visited the site to conduct photomonitoring of habitat conditions at the ten points established in 2019. During this site visit, staff installed two-foot-long PVC pipe into the ground to mark photo monitoring locations across the project site. A female striped skunk with her litter of five kits was spotted near H4. A wild turkey hen and her flock of poults were also observed seeking shelter next to the bat boxes near Tributary 7. Photo to right: A skunk family was seen near the bottom of the creek restoration site with 1 female and 5 kits. May 30, 2019 Grassroots Ecology staff and SJCC members continued to remove invasive species focusing on the riparian and upland planting areas. July 29, 2019 Staff visited the site to conduct summer photomonitoring and observe plant growth, wildlife, and invasive/native plant recruitment among planting areas. Acmon blue butterflies were nectaring on imbricate phacelia (Phacelia imbricata) and coyote mint (Monardella villosa), which were blooming near tributary 6. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 42 2.3.11 Recommended Future Actions The following adaptive management and maintenance actions are recommended as a result of observations made during the course of monitoring the corridor: • Monitor Invasive Plant Species – Invasive plant removal areas should continue to be monitored to address resprouting French broom (Genista monspessulana) as well as other target species (Table 10). • General Recommended Actions Task List Identified in Year 1 o Hand water as needed for plantings. o Continue to remove other invasive plant species listed in Table 10. o Weed plant basins and maintain protective cages. ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report 43 3. REFERENCES 2018. Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Reporting Program: Hendrys Creek Restoration Project. Prepared by Meredith Manning, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Los Altos, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreement, Notification No. 1600- 2016-0381-R3, Hendrys Creek Restoration, Valid through December 31, 2021. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Certification for the Hendrys Creek Restoration Project pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Corps File Number 2016-00390S, Valid through February 7, 2022. Hendrys Creek Restoration Project, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted May 13, 2015 (Clearinghouse #2105032064) and NOD filed May 15, 2015. Long-term Management Plan for Hendrys Creek Property, Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. April 2015. MROSD Best Management Practices and Standard Operating Procedures for Routine Maintenance Activities in Water Courses. MROSD Integrated Pest Management Program. US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 27 – Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Enhancement and Establishment Activities with Biological Opinion by USFWS Appending the Programmatic Biological Opinion for 22 Nationwide Permits for Projects that may affect the threatened California Red-Legged Frog pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, File Number 2016-00390S, Valid through March 18, 2022. ATTACHMENT 3 ·|}þ17 ·|}þ35 ·|}þ17 HighlandAve LomaPrietaWay Chiquit a Rd Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District August 2015 San Francisco SanJose Oakland Monterey Bay Mt.Umunhum Guadalupe ReservoirLexington Reservoir Lake Elsman Almaden Reservoir 3,486 ft. 0 10.5 Miles San JoseLos Gatos RedwoodEstates Mt. Thayer3,483 ft. A l m a d e n Q u i c k s i l v e rC o u n t y Pa r k S o q u e l D e m o n s t ra t i o n Fo r e s t 0 10 205 Miles While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. I S I E R R A A Z U LO P E N S PA C E P R E S E R V E Alm a d e n B l v d Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ S i e r r a _ A z u l \ H e n d r y s C r e e k \ G r a n t M a p s \ F i g u r e 1 . m x d Hicks Ro a d MROSD Preserves Watershed Land Private Property Land Trust Hendrys Creek Property MROSD Conservation EasementOther Protected Open Space Or Park Lands Non MROSD Conservation Easement SANTACLARACOUNTY SANTACRUZCOUNTY Lexington Hills HendrysCreekProperty Figure 1: Regional Map ATTACHMENT 3 H e n d r y s C r e e k LosGatos C r e e k Valoff/Pezzoli 2 Ro a d Road Holy City Rd. A l m a B r i d g e R oad G u l c h H o o k e r San Jose Water Company Rd. Weaver Road S prings Soda OldSantaC r u z H w y. 2716 Ralph's Mountain Loma Mountain ·|}17 San Jose WaterCompany L e x i n g t o n R e s e r v o i r RylandRes. Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District August, 2015 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ S i e r r a _ A z u l \ H e n d r y s C r e e k \ G r a n t M a p s \ F i g u r e 2 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : c h i a t t !Los Gatos 0 0.50.25Miles I (MROSD) Area ofDetail Si e rr aAzul While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. £¤17 £¤17 £¤35 Land TrustOther Protected Open Spaceor Park Lands Private Property Other Public Agency Watershed Land Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve Ald ercr o f t H e i g h tsRoad MROSD ConservationEasementNon MROSD Conservation Easement MROSD Open Space Preserves Hendrys Creek Property Hendrys Creek Property Figure 2: Location Map ATTACHMENT 3 Tr i b 1 2 T r i b 1 0 T r i b 9 Tr i b 8 Tr i b 7 Tr i b 6 Tr i b 5 Tr i b 4 Tr i b 3 Tr i b 2 H e n d r y s C r e e k Tr i b 1 1 H5 H4 H1 H2 H3 Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District August, 2015 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ S i e r r a _ A z u l \ H e n d r y s C r e e k \ G r a n t M a p s \ F i g u r e 4 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : c h i a t t Sie rra Azu l Op enSpace Pre se rv e 0 1,000500Feet I (MROSD) While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Sie rra Azu l Op enSpace Pre se rv e Stream Crossing Restoration Site Invasive PlantSpecies Survey Area d2 Private Property Watershed Land Figure 4: Project Overview Map SCVWD Easement MROSD Open Space Preserves Hendrys Creek Property Hendrys Creek Property Upland planting Riparian planting Riparian and Upland planting ATTACHMENT 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? f f !f f f !P SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE H e n d r y s C r e e k 1400 1200 1000 12 0 0 100 0 800 1200 1 2 0 0 1200 SA43 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) March 2020 Hendrys Creek Revegetation Areas Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ S i e r r a _ A z u l \ H e n d r y s C r e e k \ R e v e g \ S A _ H e n d r y s C r e e k _ R e v e g _ C D F W R e p o r t _ 2 0 1 8 1 0 2 5 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : f l o p e z 0 100 200 300 400 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. SIERRA AZUL OSP ÄÆ101 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ85 ÄÆ85 Campbell Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos San Jose MROSD Preserve !P Gate Unpaved Seasonal Road Unmaintained Road Restored Road !f Existing BridgefRemoved Bridge/Ford ?Removed Culvert Upland Plantings Riparian Plantings Oak Acorn and Buckeye Seed Basins ATTACHMENT 3 Hendrys Creek WY2019 Year 1 Monitoring Report Figure 5 – Vegetation Monitoring Transect Locations ATTACHMENT 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? f f !f f f H e n d r y s C r e e k SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE io24366 io19704 io19703 io19702 po131100 po131101 po129968 po129970 po129972 po129973 po114623 po91357 mg53176 mg46435 mg46434 mg46431 mg46430 mg46427 mg46425 mg36868 mg36131 mg36129mg36128 mg36127 mg36126 mg36125 mg32110 mg32109 mg32124 mg32123 mg32106 mg32105 mg34253 mg34251 mg32104 mg32103 mg32102 mg34247 mg34246 mg34245 mg32100 mg32122 mg32120 mg32119mg32094 mg32092 mg32118 mg32091 mg32089 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) 3/20/2020 Hendrys Creek Invasive Weeds Map Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ S i e r r a _ A z u l \ H e n d r y s C r e e k \ I n v a s i v e W e e d s \ H e n d r y s C r e e k _ I n v a s i v e W e e d s _ 2 0 2 0 0 3 1 7 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : f l o p e z 0 400200 FeetI 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. Easement Over MROSD Fee Area of Detail ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 Note: Robert's geranium (Geranium robertianum) not included in map. mg32088 mg32089 mg32117mg32118 mg36868 mg46427 Hend r y s C r e e k Vehicle Bridge Vehicle Bridge Centaurea solstitialis Dittrichia graveolens Genista monspessulana Rubus armeniacus Vinca major CalWeed Manager - Invasive Species Removed Culvert Bridge (Present/Removed) ? f!f Unmaintained Road Width ATTACHMENT 3 !( ") ") ") E !( !( !( !( !( !( #* !( ") E E < < < < < <<< << < < < < < << < < << < < < < < < < < H1-1 T4 T5 T6 T7-1 T7-2 H2 H3 T7-A T8-1 T8-2 H4 T9 H5 T12 H1-2 T r i b u ta r y 1 2 T r i b u t a r y 9 T r i b u t a r y 7 Tributar y 1 1 Tri bu ta r y 5 6 y r a t u b i r T T r i b u t a r y 3 Tributar y 4 T r i b u t a r y 8 Hendrys C r ee k Sh tee C3 Sh tee C4 Sh tee C5 Sh tee C6 Sh tee C7 Sh tee C9 Sh tee C10 Sh tee C8 Note: Topographic data shown on accompanying sheets are modified from contours derived from Santa Clara County LiDAR Data. 0 100 200 Feet ±Hendry's Creek Road Spur Road Tractor road Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Ephemeral Stream Date Description 10/6/2013 Draft DRAWN TCB PROJECT MPEN-HENDRYS-568 PROJECT HENDRY'S CREEK ROAD AND STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 SHEET TITLE SITE MAP DRAFT TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG 1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax) ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY SHEET NUMBER C2 Rip road surface and treat per specifications (N) Drainage Dip (E) Bridge (E) Culvert (E) Ford (E) Other ") !( E #* STREAM CROSSING DRAFT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PHOTO POINT - CROSSING REMOVAL PP3 316° PP2 PP1 PP4 259° PP5 PP7 0° PP6 PP8 PP9 15° PP10 162° PP11 PP12 275°PP13 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 2 DATE July 22, 2020 MEMO TO: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager FROM: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist CC: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resource Manager Jane Mark, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Scoping Report for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program _____________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND The Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Program) will address a strategic Board of Directors (Board) objective for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) of working with wildland fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen the prevention of, preparation for, and response to wildland fires. The Program is designed to protect natural and cultural resources, expand landscape-level ecological resilience to changing climate and fire risk conditions, and facilitate ecologically sensitive wildfire response and training while enhancing public safety and education. DISCUSSION The District issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on April 27, 2020 to inform agencies and the public of its intent to prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR; see Attachment 1). The NOP also solicited comments on the scope of the Program EIR during the public review period. The public review began on April 27, 2020 and ended on June 18, 2020 1. Comments received during the scoping process are part of the public record. The District expects that the Program could result in potentially significant environmental impacts in the following topic areas, which will be analyzed in the Program EIR: • Aesthetics 1 On May 11, 2020, District staff learned that one of two web links to the comment form did not work. During the May 13th public scoping meeting with the Board, a request for a time extension was expressed. The District therefore extended the public comment period to Thursday June 18, 2020 at 5:00 pm. • Air Quality • Biological Resources Page 2 of 2 • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soil • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Material • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Recreation • Transportation • Tribal Cultural Resources • Wildfire • Mandatory Findings of Significance The District received scoping comment letters from three state agencies, five local agencies and organizations, 36 written comments from the general public, and six additional public comments received at the public scoping meeting. All comments and questions have been reviewed and considered by the District in identifying the scope of issues to be addressed in the Program EIR. See Attachment 2, Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Scoping Summary Report for more details. NEXT STEPS The EIR is currently under preparation. Once completed, staff will release the Draft EIR for an extended 45-day comment period (a 30-day comment period is typical for draft EIRs). The Draft EIR will discuss the potential environmental impacts, associated mitigation measures, and best management practices that have been identified for the Program. The Board will consider the findings of the EIR and public comments received as they deliberate on whether to certify the EIR and approve the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program, which is scheduled to occur in the spring of 2021. Attachments: 1. Notice of Preparation 2. Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Scoping Summary Report ### Notice of Preparation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties, California Date: April 27, 2020 To: Agencies and Interested Parties From: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Review Period: April 27, 2020 to May 28, 2020 Introduction The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) is initiating the process of preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Program) to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). Midpen will serve as the lead agency for CEQA compliance. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15082), Midpen has prepared this Notice of Preparation (NOP) to inform agencies and interested parties that a Program EIR will be prepared for the above-referenced project. The purpose of a NOP is to provide sufficient information about a project and its potential environmental impacts to allow agencies and interested parties the opportunity to provide a meaningful response related to the scope and content of the EIR, including mitigation measures that should be considered and alternatives that should be addressed (14 CCR Section 15082[b]). Midpen is currently gathering public input regarding the scope of the Program EIR. Midpen will hold a public scoping meeting on May 13, 2020. Invitations to the scoping meeting will be sent to all recipients of this NOP. Midpen appreciates scoping input from public agencies and individuals in response to this NOP and to the scoping meeting. The Program information, as well as Midpen contact information, are provided below. Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Program Information Title Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Lead Agency and Address Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 (650)-691-1200 Contact Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist csifuentes@openspace.org Location The actions under the Program would be applied on all Midpen’s open space preserves (OSP) and other areas under Midpen management (collectively referred to as “Midpen lands”). Midpen is located along the western edge of the North American continent on a geologically active peninsula between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, which limits migration of plants and animals. This unique location is contained within the Santa Cruz Mountain region. The region’s Mediterranean climate is comprised of mild wet winters and long, hot, and dry summers cooled by cyclical coastal fog. Midpen’s boundary extends along the San Francisco Bay from San Carlos to Los Gatos and along the Pacific coast from south of Pacifica to the Santa Cruz County line. Midpen lands permanently protect wildlife habitat, natural resources, watersheds, and a variety of ecosystems, as shown in Figure 1. Program Setting Midpen Lands and Recreational Resources Midpen’s purpose is to create a regional greenbelt of public open space lands to permanently protect natural resources and to provide for public use and enjoyment. In addition, through the Coastal Protection Area Service Plan, Midpen is committed to protecting coastal watershed and agricultural lands and preserving the rural character of the region. Midpen has preserved nearly 65,000 acres of open space lands, of which Midpen manages nearly 59,000 acres across 26 OSPs and through management agreements (e.g., Rancho San Antonio County Park). The remaining acreage that was preserved through Midpen action is managed by other entities. Each OSP ranges from 55 to over 18,000 acres. Of the total 26 OSPs, 24 are open to the public, 365 days a year from sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. The preserves are primarily visited for recreational and educational uses. Some preserves are leased for conservation grazing. There are a variety of rural residential and agricultural structures dispersed within preserves. Within the OSPs, there are over 240 miles of trails for hiking, mountain biking, nature study, and dog walking, as well as historical and cultural artifacts, horse stables and barns, a backpack campsite, scenic viewpoints, and picnic tables and benches. District visitor use regulations prohibit activities that can spark fires including possession of firearms, smoking, open campfires, and off-road vehicle use. Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program FIGURE 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OSPS AND OTHER MANAGED LANDS Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Natural Resources Located within the California Floristic Province (one of 25 internationally recognized biological hotspots), Midpen lands are rich with natural resources. Habitats found within OSPs include forested lands, grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands. Midpen lands include redwood, oak, and fir forests, chaparral-covered hillsides, riparian corridors, grasslands, and wetlands along the San Francisco Bay. Biological resources of special significance or importance, including species and habitats currently known to occur and those currently listed as sensitive or special-status by resource agencies, are found throughout Midpen lands. Nearby Communities Midpen’s jurisdictional boundary encompasses 17 cities (Atherton, Cupertino, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and Woodside) and unincorporated areas in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and northern Santa Cruz counties with a combined population of over 700,000 residents. Although use within the OSPs is primarily ecologically sensitive outdoor recreation, many of the OSPs abut low-density residential development in addition to open space owned and maintained by various agencies. According to CALFIRE, almost 95 percent of fires in California are started by people. Many nearby communities lie within the wildland-urban interface (WUI); the area where structures meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland vegetation. The WUI is thus an area of high human-environment interactions, and a potential source of fire ignition where fires can spread into wildland areas and impact homes located in the WUI. The majority of the WUI along the OSPs has a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zone rating of “High” or “Very High”. The Program includes priority areas identified by Community Wildfire Protection Plans for fuel reduction at multiple OSPs. Fire management enhancements on Midpen lands reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires, as well as: • Protect sensitive natural resources and habitat from long-lasting damage and loss; • Benefit the local communities in the WUI by providing fuelbreaks and aiding fire suppression activities for emergency response to wildland fires; and • Protect residents living further away and downwind who may be significantly affected by smoke and impacts to air quality within the larger Bay Area region. Current Midpen Fuels Management Practices Midpen undertakes several actions and activities on their lands to prepare for fire season. The actions related to fuel maintenance and reduction and fire management include: • Maintaining existing fuelbreaks in OSPs; • Defensible space clearing around 117 Midpen-owned structures; • Maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads; and • Managing over 8,500 acres of grasslands through conservation grazing, which reduces fuel loads. Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Description of Proposed Program Purpose and Goals Changing climatic conditions, past land uses, and years of fire suppression have increased fuel loads and fire- prone conditions that could contribute to larger and more intense wildland fires. Midpen seeks to protect the natural resources on its land and to make policy decisions that support local and state fire agencies to aid in the suppression of wildfire. The Program encompasses vegetation management, as well as planning, response, and monitoring. Vegetation management helps to restore ecosystems closer to pre-fire suppression conditions through the removal of dead and accumulated vegetation, and treatment of forest disease and invasive species. Prior to the mid- to late-20th century, landscapes in the San Francisco Bay Area were subject to periodic natural fire and Native American practices of prescribed burning that kept fuel loads down. Before European contact, the spread of invasive species that alter ecosystems and increase fire risks was a lower concern. Today, in the absence of decades of natural and prescribed fires, live and dead fuels have accumulated creating higher surface fuel loads, vegetation density, and varied species composition from what was seen prior to European contact. The Program would guide Midpen activities and be periodically updated, as needed, to adapt to changing conditions and improved knowledge. The primary objectives of the Program include the following: 1. Manage vegetation to establish healthy, resilient, fire-adapted ecosystems, furthering Midpen’s mission to protect and restore the diversity and integrity of the ecological processes on Midpen lands and facilitating healthy post-fire recovery. 2. Integrate Native American cultural practices of vegetation management, particularly as they relate to prescribed fire, that promote ecological resiliency and enhance biodiversity. 3. Manage vegetation and infrastructure on Midpen lands to reduce wildland fire risks, improve wildland fire fighting capabilities and coordination, and improve overall safety to reduce the harmful effects of wildland fire on natural resources, people, and property. 4. Provide an adaptive framework for periodic review and adjustments of the Program based on a changing climate, improved knowledge, and improved technology over time. This framework will also recognize that annual implementation of the Program will need to be balanced with other competing Midpen priorities, capacity, and funding to determine the location, scale, timing, and scope of future vegetation management activities as part of annual workplans and approved fiscal year budgets. Program Considerations It is important to note that the Program EIR would be a programmatic document that is intended to help guide Midpen’s vegetation and fuel management activities. As such, the Program provides a framework to guide decisions on the types, locations, and timing of vegetation and fuel management activities. The scope, scale, and level of focus that Midpen would be able to place on vegetation and fuel management activities would vary each year and would be dependent on other competing Midpen project and Program priorities, staffing capacity, and funding availability. Also, given the ongoing growth of Midpen land holdings, changing climate conditions that may affect fire risk levels across the landscape, and other factors, Midpen may shift their vegetation and fuel management priorities as needed in response to new or changed priority sites. Annual vegetation and fuel management projects and Program budgets would be reviewed in the context of Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program the larger agency-wide work plan with discretionary approval held by the Midpen Board of Directors as part of the annual budget and action plan development process. Program Components Program Overview The Program would guide a comprehensive approach to vegetation management, including pre- and post- response activities to wildland fire on Midpen lands that integrates the following four plans: 1.Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) 2.Prescribed Fire Plan (PFP) 3.Wildland Fire Pre-Plan/Resource Advisor Maps 4.Monitoring Plan The VMP and the PFP are the primary plans within the Program that could result in physical effects on the environment. In addition, the Wildland Fire Pre-Plan includes potential new infrastructure to support wildland fire response that also could result in physical effects on the environment. The Program EIR will focus on the elements of the Program that may result in physical effects on the environment. Vegetation Management Plan Overview The VMP covers the creation of new vegetation treatment areas and maintenance of existing fuel treatment areas using various treatment methods (excluding the use of prescribed fire) to address ecosystem resiliency and/or to enhance fire management. Creation and maintenance of ecologically-sensitive vegetation management areas (VMAs) would reduce fuels by strategically and selectively thinning and removing vegetation to reduce the risk of extreme wildland fire behavior, slow the spread of a wildland fire, aid in the suppression and control of a wildland fire, and/or reduce the impacts of wildland fire should it occur. Treatment would also maintain healthy ecosystems, prioritizing treatment of invasive species over native species. Although fuel reduction does not necessarily stop fires from spreading, reducing fuel loads lessens both fire intensity and severity, increasing resiliency to both the ecological and human communities. In addition, by slowing the spread of fire, additional time is afforded for fire personnel to respond and for private residents in the WUI to evacuate. The following VMAs would reduce wildland fire damage to natural resources, enhance fire suppression activities, and reduce fire spread: •Fuel Reduction Areas (FRAs) •Shaded and Non-Shaded Fuelbreaks •Ingress/Egress Route Fuelbreaks •Disclines •Defensible Space •Emergency Staging Areas, Emergency Landing Zones, and Other Fire Management Logistics Areas •Eucalyptus and Acacia (Non-Native, Highly Combustible Plant) Removal Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Types of VMAs FRAs would be implemented for ecosystem resiliency. FRAs also enhance public safety when created in close proximity to the WUI and/or adjacent to existing fuelbreaks. FRAs are less permanent than fuelbreaks and are typically implemented in more natural areas (such as away from roads) where fuel load reduction achieves a combination of habitat enhancement goals and wildland fire risk reduction. Due to past land uses, fire management practices, and disease (such as Sudden Oak Death), reducing fuel loads in certain habitats can make the ecosystem more resilient to wildland fire. This reduction of fuels can reduce fire intensity, severity, and spread in case of a wildland fire. Vegetation management for ecosystem resiliency is performed at a considerably lower intensity than that for fire management. Other types of VMAs include fuelbreaks. Fuelbreaks are linear strips of land where trees, vegetation, and dead material have been reduced or removed. A shaded fuelbreak is an area where the tree canopy would be thinned to reduce the potential for a fire to move quickly through and/or to reduce fire spread into or through the canopy. A non-shaded fuelbreak is a swath of land where fuels are reduced in areas without an existing tree canopy, typically at a change in vegetation type, such as from forest or shrubland into grassland, or within grasslands. Fuelbreaks can slow, and even stop the spread of a wildland fire because fewer fuels are present to combust. These areas also provide firefighters with zones to take a stand against or control the spread of a wildland fire, or retreat from fire if the need arises. For the purposes of the VMP, fuelbreaks encompass a range of fuel reduction intensities, depending on the resources being protected and the ecological setting. Fuelbreaks can vary in width from approximately 15 feet around minor ingress and egress routes and up to 200 feet around major routes of travel (e.g., highways) or associated with regional vegetation management treatments. To enhance the safety of emergency staging areas and the safety of fire emergency personnel during an active wildland fire, the VMP would involve creation and maintenance of up to 200-foot shaded and non- shaded fuelbreaks around fire management areas (e.g., staging areas, landing zones), where feasible. Estimated maximum fuelbreak widths are shown in the following table. TABLE 1 MAXIMUM FUELBREAK WIDTHS BY HABITAT TYPE Habitat Type Fuelbreak Width (feet) Grass 100 Shrub 100 Oak woodland 200 Redwood or Douglas fir forest 200 An ingress/egress route fuelbreak is a 10- to 30-foot zone located on both sides of those roads identified as critical for emergency vehicle passage, typically designed to accommodate a Wildland Type 3 Fire Engine (a mid-sized fire engine built both for wildland mobility and large water capacity). Disclines are a type of mechanical vegetation treatment that would involve turning over the soil and leaving mostly a dirt surface that is intended to slow or stop progression of a fire. Defensible space is the area immediately surrounding a building(s) where vegetation management measures to reduce fuels are implemented, providing the key point of defense from an approaching wildland fire, or defense against escaping structure fires. Emergency Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program staging areas are key areas where fire suppression resources may safely park, gather crews, or land a helicopter during a wildland fire. These staging areas may also serve as a temporary refuge area during a wildland fire and must be of sufficient size to provide adequate safety for anticipated flame lengths, wind, and other factors. Emergency staging areas include existing parking areas and landing zones. Emergency landing zones allow helicopters to land in the event of an emergency. Eucalyptus and acacia trees would be removed from locations where these non-native and highly combustible trees pose a significant fire hazard. Locations and Prioritization of VMAs Several criteria would be used to determine the prioritization and location of new VMAs for both ecosystem resiliency and fire management. The criteria for ecosystem resiliency focus on natural resources, while the criteria for enhanced fire management focuses on infrastructure critical for emergency response, evacuation routes and protecting District managed structures. Prioritization will take into consideration projected staffing and financial resources to confirm long-term maintenance and management of fuel treatment areas. Each year, Midpen staff, with input from surrounding fire agencies, will identify the extent, scope, and location of the proposed VMAs to include in Annual Work Plans. The annual plan will be dependent upon numerous factors, including annual staffing capacity, funding availability, partnerships, and other resource availability, and be balanced with other Midpen priorities that also further Midpen’s mission, annual Strategic Goals & Objectives, and the Vision Plan. District staff, with input from surrounding fire agencies, will annually prioritize areas for treatment and bring the anticipated budgets to the Board for review and approval as part of the annual capital improvement and action plan development process. Cyclical Maintenance of VMAs Frequency of maintenance can vary from annually, for vegetation management in grass-dominated vegetation types, to approximately once every 3 to 10 years depending on vegetation type, the fuel conditions, and regrowth. VMAs would be treated annually with Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) through Midpen’s Integrated Pest Management Program (IPMP) to detect and remove invasive species that may arise. VMAs that border or traverse largely intact ecosystems still dominated by native species can be maintained with low-intensity brushing, performed as needed based on field inspections. In contrast, VMAs that are bordered or traversed by degraded ecosystems dominated by weeds need a different and more intensive maintenance prescription to reduce the spread of weeds in the VMA and into surrounding areas. VMAs with non-native species would be maintained with annual brushing, which removes invasive weeds; disposal of brush is accomplished via chipping, pile burning, or hauling. Invasive species treatment is addressed in Midpen’s IPMP. The IPMP, however, does not address the acreages of mowing and the use of pesticides for VMA creation and maintenance; these are therefore included in the VMP. Midpen annually mows over 100 miles of roadside to eliminate weeds, and unwanted vegetation and, where applicable, to allow access for Wildland Type 3 Fire Engines. These activities will continue on an annual basis, as defined in the IPMP and covered under that program and its certified EIR (2014; addendum 2019). The VMP would potentially expand on this existing treatment by creating and maintaining fuelbreaks along Wildland Type 3 ingress and egress routes and major routes, and widen the area of treatment, as appropriate. Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Vegetation Management Methods for Creation and Maintenance of VMAs As part of VMP implementation, Midpen would primarily rely on manual, mechanical, and grazing approaches to manage vegetation, consistent with existing vegetation management activities. These approaches currently account for approximately 90 percent of all vegetation management work, and similar percentages are expected to continue into the future even with the continual addition of newly protected open space acreage. Approximately 10 percent of all vegetation management work incorporates chemical methods under limited and controlled applications, supervised by State of California certified applicators. All vegetation management on Midpen lands prioritize invasive and non-native species removal over native species. Limited chemical control would involve use of the Midpen-approved pesticides listed in the IPMP and covered in the IPMP EIR and Addendum (Midpen, 2014; Midpen, 2019). For each type of vegetation management method, Midpen would continue to employ a series of best management practices (BMPs) to prevent, reduce, or mitigate potential impacts to ecological and/or human health and safety. All updates to the Board-approved pesticide list and associated BMPs would be incorporated into the Program. Prescribed Fire Plan The Program also includes a programmatic-level PFP. Prescribed burning is a specific activity in which fire is applied to most or all of a well-defined treatment area with discrete boundaries for the combined purpose of habitat improvement to restore and/or enhance ecosystem health and fuel load reduction. Prescribed fires would only be conducted with the agreement of the jurisdictional fire agency. Areas of Midpen land where prescribed fire would likely not be considered include those areas where burning is prohibited by law/regulation/ordinance, less than 0.25 miles of a smoke sensitive area (e.g., hospitals, schools, nursing homes), or where topography (e.g., slope, aspect) makes it unsuitable for a prescribed burn. The technique is particularly useful in grassland and oak woodland habitats, as it can both meet biological objectives by reintroducing natural ecological processes, including the regeneration of native fire-dependent vegetation, and reduce risk of wildland fire. Prescribed fire burn plans would be utilized to identify site specific aspects of the burn. Burn units would be generally selected to take advantage of natural control lines, such as reservoirs and service roads, and changes in habitat types. Prescribed burning occurs in four distinct phases: pre-treatment, the burn event, mop-up and patrol, and rehabilitation. Pre-treatment may include removal and scattering of vegetation in addition to installation of control lines, where existing control lines do not exist. The burn event would typically be a full-day activity when fire would intentionally be applied at one or more ignition points and allowed to run between control lines across the designated unit. The fire is monitored until completely out. The prescribed burn sites would be patrolled by Midpen Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) crews for 1 to 5 years as needed following a burn event to protect the newly disturbed area from invasive species becoming established. The PFP lays out the parameters, resources, and factors to guide the implementation of prescribed burns on Midpen lands, including: burn methods, fire durations, fire regimes, seasonality, exclusion zones, priority/recommended locations, vegetation types, monitoring of fuel loads, best management practices, pre‐ and post‐fire activities, personnel, and equipment. The PFP also identifies the priority activities and mapping of burn units. Although prescribed burns would likely focus initially on grasslands, all habitat types that occur within Midpen OSPs would be evaluated and prioritized. Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Wildland Fire Pre-Plan/Resource Advisor Maps The Wildland Fire Pre-Fire Plan/Resource Advisor Maps are geographic-based documents to assist responding fire agencies during emergency response activities in the event of a wildland fire by providing information on fire suppression resources like water sources and staging areas. In addition, the maps provide information on sensitive natural and cultural resources to avoid, if possible, during fire suppression activities or to minimize harm to natural ecosystems. This component of the Program primarily describes planning actions and preparation of maps that do not have physical effects on the environment. The Wildland Fire Pre-Plans and Resource Advisor Maps include the following elements: • Existing conditions and infrastructure that may aid fire suppression activities, including access roads, fuel breaks, structures, and water sources (hydrants, water tanks, ponds, creeks, and springs); • Known sensitive natural and cultural resources for fire personnel to avoid, if possible, during fire suppression activities; • Structures that are inhabited or are historically significant that should have resources committed to their defense during a wildland fire; • Potential locations for fire suppression activities and equipment staging for Midpen lands in the event of a wildland fire; • Suggested BMPS for wildland fire response and suppression activities; • Areas where suppression activities should be limited (if feasible); and • Circulation and access roads, including designated evacuation routes. The Wildland Fire Pre-Fire Plan and Resource Advisor Maps have been and would continue to be prepared with input from the local community. Monitoring Plan The Monitoring Plan describes and references generally accepted protocols that monitor vegetation, water, and wildlife on Midpen lands to establish and compare pre- and post-project conditions, vegetation treatment response, and fuels inventories. Monitoring results are used to identify any adaptive management techniques that should be considered and incorporated in subsequent fuel management work. The monitoring protocols are based on best practices used by adjacent or regionally based land management agencies (e.g., National Park Service, State Parks) and supported by published research. More specifically, a monitoring plan may include the following: • Monitoring pre-project vegetation, soil, erosion, and water quality to establish baseline conditions for post project analysis; • Monitoring Burned Area Emergency Response/Burned Area Rehabilitation, and post fire response; • Monitoring the response to other vegetation management activities; • Assessing the achievement of project objectives; • Assessing impacts to vegetation, soil, erosion, and water quality from fire or other vegetation management activities; and • Inventorying and monitoring fuels to track fuel accumulation over time. Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Monitoring Plans do not typically include elements that could result in physical effects on the environment, as they simply provide the protocols to monitor the environment. Other Approvals Required The Program requires approval from the Midpen Board of Directors. For the purposes of CEQA compliance and project implementation, Midpen serves as the lead agency in completing and certifying the CEQA document. Prescribed burns also require approval from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Approval may be required by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), and, if some activities occur within jurisdictional waters, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Other permits and approvals may be identified during preparation of the Program EIR. Potential Environmental Impacts The Program EIR will describe the direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Program. The Program EIR will also evaluate the cumulative impacts of the Program when considered in conjunction with other related past, present, and probable future projects. All topics identified in the Appendix G Checklist of the CEQA Guidelines will be addressed in the Program EIR. Midpen expects that the Program could result in potentially significant environmental impacts in the following topic areas, which will be analyzed in the Program EIR: Aesthetics Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Noise Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance Feasible mitigation measures will be identified to reduce any identified potentially significant impacts. Alternatives to be Evaluated in the Program EIR In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the Program EIR will describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that are capable of meeting most of the project’s objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The Program EIR will identify any alternatives that were considered but rejected by the lead agency as infeasible and briefly explain the justification for this decision. The Program EIR will also provide an analysis of the No Project Alternative. Documents Available for Public Review A hard copy of the NOP is available for public review at: Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 The NOP is also available for public review online at: http://www.openspace.org/news/public_notices.asp Opportunity for Public Comment Interested individuals, groups, and agencies may provide Midpen with written comments on topics to be addressed in the Program EIR. Because of time limits mandated by state law, comments should be provided no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 28, 2020. Agencies that will need to use the Program EIR when considering permits or other approvals for the proposed project should provide Midpen with the name of a staff contact person. Please send all comments to: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attn: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 (650) 691-1200 Email: csifuentes@openspace.org Comments provided by email should include “Wildland Fire Resiliency Program NOP Scoping Comment” in the subject line, and the name and physical address of the commenter in the body of the email. All comments on environmental issues received during the public comment period will be considered and addressed in the Draft Program EIR, which is anticipated to be available for public review in summer 2020. Public Scoping Meeting A public scoping meeting will be held by Midpen to inform interested parties about the proposed project, and to provide agencies and the public with an opportunity to provide comments on the scope and content of the Program EIR. The meeting time and location are as follows: May 13, 2020 5:00 p.m. Board Room, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 (650) 691-1200 In the event of the continuance of the Shelter-In-Place order due to COVID-19, the scoping meeting may be conducted via teleconference in accordance with the March 17, 2020 Governor issued Executive Order N-29- 20. The meeting space is accessible to persons with disabilities. Individuals needing special assistive devices will be accommodated to Midpen’s best ability. For more information, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200 or clerk@openspace.org at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Attachment 1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program 717 Market Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94103 650-373-1200 www.panoramaenv.com Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Scoping Summary Report July 2020 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 www.panoramaenv.com Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Scoping Summary Report July 2020 Prepared for: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Prepared by: Panorama Environmental, Inc. 717 Market Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94103 650-373-1200 tania.treis@panoramaenv.com Attachment 2 Attachment 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 i Table of Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Program Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Scoping Process ............................................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Scoping Report Organization ....................................................................................................................... 1-2 2 Program Scoping Process ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Notice of Preparation .................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Public Scoping Meeting ............................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Press Release ................................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.4 Tribal Government and Agency Notification ............................................................................................ 2-2 2.5 Internet Website ............................................................................................................................................ 2-3 3 Summary of Public Comments .................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Public Review Period Commenters ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Issues Raised During Scoping Process..................................................................................................... 3-2 4 Future Steps in the CEQA and Decision Process .................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 CEQA Process After Scoping ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Board of Directors Decision Process ........................................................................................................ 4-2 List of Tables Table 2-1 Summary of CEQA NOP Requirements and Midpen Noticing ............................................ 2-1 Table 2-2 Tribes Notified During Project Scoping .................................................................................. 2-2 Table 2-3 Agencies and Organizations Notified During Project Scoping .......................................... 2-3 Table 3-1 Agency and Organization Commenters .................................................................................. 3-1 Table 3-2 Summary of Comments Received During Scoping ............................................................... 3-2 Table 4-1 Steps in the CEQA Process ....................................................................................................... 4-1 Attachment 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 ii List of Appendices Appendix A Notice of Preparation Appendix B Scoping Meeting Materials Appendix C Board of Directors Scoping Meeting Minutes Appendix D Press Release Appendix E Comments Received During Scoping Attachment 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 iii This page is intentionally left blank. Attachment 2 1 INTRODUCTION Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 1-1 1 Introduction 1.1 Program Summary Wildland fire prevention, preparation, and response are a part of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (Midpen) land stewardship. The Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Program) documents and permits the various planning efforts needed to meet Midpen’s objectives for establishing wildland fire resiliency on its lands. The Program would create a comprehensive approach to wildland fire management, including pre- and post-response activities to wildland fire on Midpen lands. The Program identifies new fuel treatment activities to be implemented in addition to current fire and fuel management efforts. The Program does not have a specific life span; however, specific actions are identified for Program implementation, including an annual maximum level of effort. Program activities would depend on annual staffing capacity, funding availability, partnerships, and other resources and other priorities and projects that further the mission and the Midpen Board of Directors’ (Board) strategic goals and objectives must also be considered. Upon adoption, the Program would guide Midpen’s efforts concerning wildland fire management throughout its lands. The Program includes a detailed monitoring plan with an adaptive management framework so that the Program can be reviewed and revised, as necessary, to meet objectives. Should the maximum annual actions or conditions need to change significantly in the future, Midpen may opt to prepare an addendum to the Program to address those changes. The Program is comprised of and integrates the following four plans: • Vegetation Management Plan (VMP): Addresses creation and maintenance of fuel reduction areas (FRAs) for ecosystem health, fuelbreaks, and defensible space zones using vegetation management techniques addressed in Midpen’s IPMP. These techniques include manual and mechanical removal of vegetation, use of herbicides, and prescribed herbivory. • Prescribed Fire Plan (PFP): Addresses the methods and implementation of prescribed fire to manage fuel and improve ecosystem health, particularly in areas of Midpen lands that are interior and away from roads and structures. • Wildland Fire Pre-Plan/Resource Advisor Maps: Describes the creation of Resource Advisor maps for each OSP and other managed land (or groups of managed lands) that would include information on existing conditions, infrastructure, and resources constraints. The plans would aid fire suppression activities and would identify sensitive resource areas that merit protection from potential damage due to fire or fire suppression activities. Attachment 2 1 INTRODUCTION Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 1-2 • Monitoring Plan: Provides a framework for recording pre-project conditions, vegetation treatment response, and fuels inventories to inform future adaptive management techniques. 1.2 Scoping Process This scoping report describes Midpen’s scoping process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and contains the comments received during the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period. The purpose of scoping under CEQA is to: • Inform the public and responsible agencies about an upcoming project for which an EIR will be prepared; • Inform the public about the environmental review process; • Solicit input regarding the appropriate scope of issues to be studied in the EIR and potential alternatives to the proposed project; • Identify issues of concern and areas of potential controversy; and • Provide the public an opportunity to comment on the project and associated impacts. Midpen will use scoping comments to: • Refine the range of environmental issues to be evaluated in the Program EIR; • Identify potential environmental impacts to be considered in the Program EIR; • Identify potential mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts identified in the Program EIR; and • Identify potential alternatives to the Program that would reduce or avoid significant impacts. Comments received during the scoping process are part of the public record as documented in this scoping report. The comments and questions received during the public scoping process have been reviewed and considered by Midpen in determining the appropriate scope of issues to be addressed in the Program EIR. The Notice of Preparation (NOP), public comments received, and scoping meeting materials are attached to this document. 1.3 Scoping Report Organization The scoping report is organized into the following sections: • Section 1, Introduction: Provides an overview of the scoping report. • Section 2, Program Scoping Process: Describes Midpen’s CEQA scoping process. • Section 3, Summary of Public Comments: Lists commenters who provided comments during the Program EIR public review period and summarizes the key issues raised. Attachment 2 1 INTRODUCTION Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 1-3 • Section 4, Future Steps in the CEQA and Decision-Making Process: Briefly describes the future steps in the CEQA and Midpen decision-making process, including consideration of approval of the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program. The scoping report appendices contain materials and documents used and received during the Program EIR scoping process. The following appendices are included: • Appendix A, Notice of Preparation: April 2020 NOP; • Appendix B, Scoping Meeting Materials: Scoping meeting agenda and presentation slides; • Appendix C, Scoping Meeting Minutes: Approved Board meeting minutes; • Appendix D, Press Release: Press release for the scoping meeting, submitted to regional media contact list; and • Appendix E, Comments Received During Scoping: Comment letters received during the public review period, including comments from the scoping meeting that were read into the record. Attachment 2 2 PROGRAM SCOPING PROCESS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 2-1 2 Program Scoping Process 2.1 Notice of Preparation Midpen issued a NOP on April 27, 2020 to inform agencies and the public of its intent to prepare a Program EIR (see Appendix A). The NOP also solicited comments on the scope of the Program EIR during the public review period. Public review began on April 27, 2020 and ended on June 18, 2020 1. Table 2-1 contains CEQA NOP requirements and describes how Midpen distributed the NOP to meet these requirements. Table 2-1 Summary of CEQA NOP Requirements and Midpen Noticing CEQA Requirement Noticing Conducted by Midpen To each responsible a and trustee b agency advising them of its intention to prepare an EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15082). • Mailed the NOP to the trustee agency (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) • Mailed the NOP to the responsible agency (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) Consultation with persons and organizations prior to completing the Draft EIR is optional under CEQA. When such scoping occurs, it should be a part of agency consultation under Section 15082 to the extent that combining agency consultation and public scoping is feasible (CEQA Guidelines § 15083). • Posted the NOP on the Midpen website • Sent an email notification to approximately 1,800 recipients regarding NOP publishing and follow up emails with details of the public scoping meeting and extension of the comment period • Sent postcards to approximately 3,500 property owners within 500 feet of the open space preserves regarding the public scoping meeting Notes: a Any public agency, other than the lead agency, which has discretionary approval power over a project (CEQA Guidelines § 15381) b State agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of California (CEQA Guidelines § 15386) 1 On May 11, 2020, Midpen staff learned that one of two web links to the comment form did not work. During the May 13th scoping meeting with the Board, a request for a time extension was expressed. Midpen therefore extended the public comment period to Thursday June 18, 2020 at 5:00 pm. Attachment 2 2 PROGRAM SCOPING PROCESS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 2-2 2.2 Public Scoping Meeting Midpen held a public scoping meeting on May 13, 2020 online via teleconference, in accordance with the March 17, 2020 Executive Order N-29-20 issued by the Governor of California which suspended certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. The purpose of this meeting was to 1) inform the public and interested agencies about the Program, 2) solicit public comment on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Program EIR, and 3) obtain Board approval of the Program scope. Midpen read public comments into the record during the public scoping meeting. The public scoping meeting presentation is included in Appendix B of this document. The meeting minutes from the public scoping meeting are provided in Appendix C. 2.3 Press Release The date and teleconference format of the public scoping meeting was advertised in a press release issued to a regional media contact list. The press release provided a brief summary of the Program and Midpen’s mission and referred its audience to Midpen’s website (discussed in Section 2.5). The press release is provided in Appendix D. 2.4 Tribal Government and Agency Notification 2.4.1 Tribal Notification Midpen sent notification letters regarding the Program NOP to eight tribal government contacts provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission on May 23, 2020. No tribes have requested formal notice of and information on projects within the Program area per Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The tribes that were notified of the Program and upcoming EIR preparation are listed in Table 2-2. Table 2-2 Tribes Notified During Project Scoping Tribes • Amah Mutsun Tribal Band • Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista • Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsun Tribe • Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe • Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan • Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area • North Valley Yokuts Tribe • Ohlone Indian Tribe Midpen has engaged in informal consultation with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band throughout the preparation of the Program. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band provided comments on the policy aspects of the Program, which were incorporated into the Program development. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band and the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Attachment 2 2 PROGRAM SCOPING PROCESS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 2-3 Area have expressed interest in the Prescribed Fire Plan component of the Program and requested to be informed when preparation of the detailed Prescribed Fire Plan begins. 2.4.2 Agency Notification Midpen sent Program notification letters to various agencies. Midpen also notified local organizations who might be impacted by the Program or that have expressed interest in the Program environmental review. Agencies and organizations that were notified during the scoping process are listed in Table 2-3. The trustee agency is marked with an asterisk. Table 2-3 Agencies and Organizations Notified During Project Scoping Agencies and Organizations • California Air Resources Board • California Highway Patrol • California Department of Transportation District 4 & 5 • California Coastal Commission (North Central Coast and Central Coast District) • California Department of Conservation • California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 3* • California Department of Food and Agriculture • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection • United States Fish and Wildlife Service • California Native American Heritage Commission • California Department of Parks and Recreation • California Department of Pesticide Regulation • California Regional Water Quality Control Board Regions 2 & 3 • California Natural Resources Agency • California State Water Resources Control Board • California Department of Toxic Substances Control • United States Army Corps of Engineers • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2.5 Internet Website Midpen publicized information about the Program through a Program website. The website serves as an additional public venue to learn about the Program. During the public review period, the website included electronic versions of the NOP and Program-related documents. The website will remain a public resource throughout the development of the Program and EIR. Notices of any future public meetings and the Program EIR release and public review will be posted on the website. The website address is https://www.openspace.org/our- work/projects/wfrp. Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-1 3 Summary of Public Comments 3.1 Overview This section summarizes the comments raised by the public, agencies and organizations during the scoping process for the Program EIR. Midpen received a total of 36 written comment letters and comment forms during the public review period and received comments from six additional commenters at the public scoping meeting. All comments received during the scoping process are entered into the Program administrative record and considered during the preparation of the Draft Program EIR. A summary of the main issues raised in public comments is provided in Section 3.3. All written comments received during the scoping process are provided in Appendix E. Oral comments recorded during the public scoping meeting are included in the meeting minutes, provided in Appendix C. 3.2 Public Review Period Commenters Midpen received scoping comment letters from three state agencies and five local agencies and organizations. Table 3-1 lists the agencies and organizations that provided comments during the scoping process. The trustee agency is marked with an asterisk. Table 3-1 Agency and Organization Commenters Agency / Organization Name Date Received State Agencies California Department of Fish and Wildlife* 5/20/2020 California Native Plant Society 6/18/2020 Native American Heritage Commission 4/27/2020 Local Agencies and Organizations County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department 6/18/2020 Portola Valley Ranch 6/18/2020 San Jose Water 4/30/2020 Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society 6/18/2020 Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter 5/13/2020 and 6/18/2020 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-2 Members of the public submitted a total of 24 written comment letters. Copies of all comment letters are provided in Appendix E. 3.3 Issues Raised During Scoping Process Public and agency commenters expressed a wide range of concerns and/or opinions regarding the potential effects of the Program on various environmental resource topics (e.g., air quality, biology, etc.). Table 3-2 provides a summary of the comments received and the number of commenters who expressed concern regarding each summarized comment. A single comment letter often contained multiple individual or discreet “comments.” A response with factual information to raised concerns and/or options will be included as part of the Final EIR. Comments provided during the May 13, 2020 public scoping meeting are marked with an asterisk. Table 3-2 Summary of Comments Received During Scoping Comment Summary Number of Comments Project Description Program seems to focus on clearance around buildings. 1 What determines the upper limits for acreage to be treated? 2 Disappointed that a risk analysis considering proximity to communities, geographical features (upslope), and proximity to human ignition sources was not considered in the determination of Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas. 1 More fuel reduction work should be included near Portola Valley in Thornewood, Windy Hill, and the Hawthorns Property. 7 The Program does not mention use of grazing goats, which do an excellent job of chewing thistle patches and might be useful in special locations across Midpen lands where thistle is particularly problematic. 1 Pleased to see the Board move in the direction of a comprehensive plan for fire management. 1 Unhappy that no controlled burning nor vegetation removal seems to be planned for Windy Hill, Montebello, Coal Ridge, Long Ridge, and other OSPs. 1 Exotic animal grazing is not beneficial for many reasons including animals eat native species before weeds, animals produce methane, and grazing will not convert weeds back to natives.* 1 Program focuses almost exclusively on fuel reduction, but other methods should be considered as well, including home hardening or increasing the number of large trees. 3 Program should be expanded to include the hardening of Midpen's 117 buildings against fire as well as encouraging neighbors to make their homes safer.* 1 How will Midpen prioritize the treatments as there are several different potential fuel treatments planned across Midpen lands? 1 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-3 What is standard about the Program versus what is new as compared to what other agencies are doing? 1 How will treated vegetation will be disposed? 1 How will neighbors and fire agencies be informed of the pre-plan maps and distribution? 2 How will pre-plan maps be updated? 1 How will the document continue to be current and updated with best practices and techniques available? 1 Why are disclines expressed in areas instead of miles? 1 What is the difference between pile burns and broadcast burns? 1 Hope that large firebreaks and improved ingress/egress and mapping for firefighters are implemented immediately. 1 Provide full Project Description of project features in Draft EIR. 1 Suggest working with Woodside Fire Department to, at least once in the summer, have a fire drill on the Hawthorne Property in Portola Valley. 1 Suggest grassland fire break cutting to be 200 feet at Hawthorn Property in Portola Valley. 1 Consider 1) A wider fuel break than the existing disc-line near Fremont Older and clear dead branches and low shrubs/grass and 2) Clear the dead/fallen pine trees that prevent the existing disc-line from being plowed higher on the ridge to the top of Arrowhead Lane. 1 Objectives 1 and 4 of the Program are not clear or concise. 1 Recommend map revisions such as adding named roads and creeks, differentiating between existing and planned treatment areas, showing proposed new infrastructure, and editing colored features so they are readable for blind people. 1 When will work be performed (timeline/frequency) and how will it be monitored and maintained? 1 Request explanation of "FRA for ecosystem resiliency" and comment that it could not be found in the program. 1 Confirm no fuel reduction planned in Windy Hill OSP near Alpine Road where small bays and oaks are creating ground level deadwood. 1 Controlled burns during winter months should be included. 1 Goats may be useful in certain preserve locations. 1 Program should include the installation of cameras for early detection and decision-making during fire fighting.* 1 Priority should be focused on increasing the number of large trees. 1 Discuss integration with existing Midpen Policies and Programs. 1 Midpen has fences within the roadway right of way line that prevents mowing and masticating by others and prevents creation of the minimum clearance needed for shaded fuelbreaks; Portola Valley has very few escape routes. 1 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-4 Urge Board to include a risk-based approach, which considers proximity to populated communities to establish Tier structure. 1 Suggest expanding the Program to include vegetation management and removal around areas of potential lightning strikes and powerlines as well as along roads and trails. 1 All roads used by the public that are within or adjacent to Midpen property should be cleared of dead, dying, or highly flammable vegetation to the full extent of the road right-of-way. 1 The recent catastrophic wildfires in California have highlighted the hazard that exists in the wildland-urban interface. 6 Another large fire in the Bay Area would be devastating. 3 Concerned that Midpen has not made fire resiliency a large enough priority and should dedicate more resources and funding. 4 Accumulation of fuel in Thornewood has been ignored. 4 Large amounts of downed wood and brush has accumulated near trails. 2 Portola Valley has a high fire danger, with presence of aggressive fuels like coyote bush and dead oaks that need to be cleared from Windy Hill. 1 Residents near Portola Valley are doing all they can on individual properties to mitigate fire risk. 2 Significant fire event is highly likely near Portola Valley and Thornewood and risk is higher than in other OSPs. 6 Will a fuelbreak be completed between Portola Valley Ranch and Hawthorns preserve? 1 TOTAL 76 Alternatives Alternative is mowing when weed seeds are still green, and weeds will be replaced by dormant native seeds in the soil.* 1 How are alternatives determined? 1 Scope of project and alternatives should be expanded to focus on preserving and enhancing the character of Midpen’s lands, such as through increasing carbon sequestration and maintaining soil moisture, biodiversity, and habitat. 3 Requests evaluation of “Craig Dremann’s Meadow-Whisperer Method” alternative. 2 Evaluate “Craig Dremann’s Mowing that Unearths Dormant Native Seed" alternative method. 3 Evaluate the impact of no activity/no project. 2 Add alternative wildfire vulnerability reduction options. 1 Alternatives to vegetation removal and ways of reducing the demand and scope of vegetation removal should be evaluated in the EIR. 1 Avoid or minimize removal of eucalyptus to minimize effects on species that use eucalyptus. 1 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-5 Currently, Midpen has zero studies that can be used to evaluate alternatives that reduce fire fuels in the grasslands. 1 Midpen should conduct the proper studies for each alternative method to achieve the goal of measured pounds-per-acre fire-fuel reduction in the native grasslands and wildflower fields of the preserves. 1 Include an analysis of the different methods, along with reduction of fire fuel, which produce the least damage to the native wildflower and native grass resources. 1 TOTAL 18 Air Quality How will air quality be evaluated and what equipment will be used? 1 Why will past data be used for the baseline for air quality instead of current data at the time of the NOP? 1 Suggested studying air quality impacts in relation to the current health pandemic and the impact of COVID-19 as a way to set a higher standard for air quality. 1 TOTAL 3 Biological Resources Potentially significant impacts to biological resources may be associated with the Project if fully protected, threatened or endangered, candidate, and other special-status species that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur in or near the Program area may be impacted. 1 Include list of species that are known to occur or have potential to occur in project site in the EIR. 1 Include project baseline species habitats in Draft EIR. 1 Recommended mitigation measures for special-status wildlife, special-status plant species, nesting birds, state fully-protected species, bats, Marbled Murrelet California Red-legged frog, Western pond turtle. 1 Recommend the Draft EIR address habitat fragmentation and potential impacts to habitat connectivity from significant vegetation clearing and creation of edge effects. 1 Provide a summary of permitting and regulatory requirements related to biological resources. 2 Actions need to be weighed carefully to protect endangered and other wild species in Program areas. 1 Eucalyptus trees and other non-native species (French broom) need to be addressed aggressively. 1 Live oaks on Windy Hill have been declining over the past winter months and now are dead and quite a lot of Douglas fir is declining as well; this vegetation should be removed to reduce fire risk. 1 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-6 Concern that coyote bush is covering at least half the open meadows, which used to be more diverse, and should be removed under the Program to reduce invasive species. 1 Expand on the benefits and potential harmful impacts of prescribed burns to existing ecosystems, habitats and species. 2 Assess harm to olive-sided flycatchers nesting habitats from Program activities. 1 The Draft EIR should specify the methods and protocols for rare plant surveys in areas identified for vegetation treatment and removal. 1 Draft EIR should clearly identify measures to control invasive species encroachment during and following project activities. 1 Minimizing native vegetation removal should be considered to help limit the spread of damaging invasive plants. 1 Any successful grassland management project in Central California should be producing a 20- 25% increase in native plant cover each year, until you achieve between 90-98% native cover within 4-5 years. And when you get to that performance standard of 90-98% native cover, you essential have very close to zero fire-fuel. 1 Plowing fire breaks is ineffective – it drives native seeds in soil too deep, so they can never sprout, producing permanent weed-covered areas. 1 Fire or prescribed burns are not beneficial because weeds can take advantage faster than the natives can, like occurred with the five prescribed fires at Russian Ridge. 1 Fires pyrolizes surface organic matter and nutrients, lowering levels below native seedling survival.* 1 Requested before-and-after vegetation transects data to show the success of prescribed burn, grazing, and no project alternative on native species growth. 1 Burn at Russian Ridge in July 2007 illegally destroyed 2 million native plants and the burn created empty spots where 3 million weeds moved in to fill. Native grasslands in Russian Ridge are recovering on their own after burn in 2007. 1 TOTAL 23 Cultural Resources Summary of SB 18 and AB 52 tribal consultation requirements. 1 Recommend contacting the California Historical Research Information System Center for archaeological records search and contacting the Native American Heritage Commission for a Sacred Lands File search for adequate cultural resources analysis. 1 How can the impact on cultural resources be determined if staff does know what resources are present, including currently undiscovered cultural resources? 1 TOTAL 3 Geology and Soils Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-7 The EIR must address how fire management can increase landslides, especially in the rainy Santa Cruz mountains or similar areas, because vegetation helps stabilize slopes and most of Midpen’s preserves are located in areas susceptible to significant rain events and earthquakes. 2 How would increased landslide risk be mitigated? 1 TOTAL 3 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fuel reduction can promote or inhibit carbon sequestration. Increasing the number of large trees increases carbon sequestration, whereas removal of too much competition can result in less diversity and no significant increase in size of trees. 1 TOTAL 1 Traffic Include the need to ensure safe passage during a wildfire for all vehicles that pass through or adjacent to Midpen properties. 1 TOTAL 1 Cumulative Program will enhance the fire resiliency work San Jose Water is planning for its own properties. 1 TOTAL 1 CEQA Process Online comment form not functioning, extend the public comment period.* 1 Request that the District clearly identify the manner in which project-level activities tiering off the program-level Draft EIR will be reviewed and noticed, so that the public and interested organizations will have opportunities to review and comment on the specific future activities occurring under the program. 1 Request investigation of how long the comment form was not available to the public.* 1 TOTAL 3 Non-Project Related Midpen should take proactive steps to ensure that PG&E's equipment on their property is safe since antiquated PG&E equipment has caused many of the more serious fires.* 1 Requests the trees along the road in front of the Windy Hill parking lot meadow be removed so people can feel the open space meadow as a foreground experience. 1 Make fencing along Alpine Road near Hawthorns property more transparent and wildlife friendly. 1 TOTAL 3 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-9 Comment Summary Number of Comments Project Description Program seems to focus on clearance around buildings. 1 What determines the upper limits for acreage to be treated? 2 Disappointed that a risk analysis considering proximity to communities, geographical features (upslope), and proximity to human ignition sources was not considered in the determination of Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas. 1 More fuel reduction work should be included near Portola Valley in Thornewood, Windy Hill, and the Hawthorns Property. 7 The Program does not mention use of grazing goats, which do an excellent job of chewing thistle patches and might be useful in special locations across Midpen lands where thistle is particularly problematic. 1 Pleased to see the Board move in the direction of a comprehensive plan for fire management. 1 Unhappy that no controlled burning nor vegetation removal seems to be planned for Windy Hill, Montebello, Coal Ridge, Long Ridge, and other OSPs. 1 Exotic animal grazing is not beneficial for many reasons including animals eat native species before weeds, animals produce methane, and grazing will not convert weeds back to natives.* 1 Program focuses almost exclusively on fuel reduction, but other methods should be considered as well, including home hardening or increasing the number of large trees. 3 Program should be expanded to include the hardening of Midpen's 117 buildings against fire as well as encouraging neighbors to make their homes safer.* 1 How will Midpen prioritize the treatments as there are several different potential fuel treatments planned across Midpen lands? 1 What is standard about the Program versus what is new as compared to what other agencies are doing? 1 How will treated vegetation will be disposed? 1 How will neighbors and fire agencies be informed of the pre-plan maps and distribution? 2 How will pre-plan maps be updated? 1 How will the document continue to be current and updated with best practices and techniques available? 1 Why are disclines expressed in areas instead of miles? 1 What is the difference between pile burns and broadcast burns? 1 Hope that large firebreaks and improved ingress/egress and mapping for firefighters are implemented immediately. 1 Provide full Project Description of project features in Draft EIR. 1 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-10 Suggest working with Woodside Fire Department to, at least once in the summer, have a fire drill on the Hawthorne Property in Portola Valley. 1 Suggest grassland fire break cutting to be 200 feet at Hawthorn Property in Portola Valley. 1 Consider 1) A wider fuel break than the existing disc-line near Fremont Older and clear dead branches and low shrubs/grass and 2) Clear the dead/fallen pine trees that prevent the existing disc-line from being plowed higher on the ridge to the top of Arrowhead Lane. 1 Objectives 1 and 4 of the Program are not clear or concise. 1 Recommend map revisions such as adding named roads and creeks, differentiating between existing and planned treatment areas, showing proposed new infrastructure, and editing colored features so they are readable for blind people. 1 When will work be performed (timeline/frequency) and how will it be monitored and maintained? 1 Request explanation of "FRA for ecosystem resiliency" and comment that it could not be found in the program. 1 Confirm no fuel reduction planned in Windy Hill OSP near Alpine Road where small bays and oaks are creating ground level deadwood. 1 Controlled burns during winter months should be included. 1 Goats may be useful in certain preserve locations. 1 Program should include the installation of cameras for early detection and decision-making during fire fighting.* 1 Priority should be focused on increasing the number of large trees. 1 Discuss integration with existing Midpen Policies and Programs. 1 Midpen has fences within the roadway right of way line that prevents mowing and masticating by others and prevents creation of the minimum clearance needed for shaded fuelbreaks; Portola Valley has very few escape routes. 1 Urge Board to include a risk-based approach, which considers proximity to populated communities to establish Tier structure. 1 Suggest expanding the Program to include vegetation management and removal around areas of potential lightning strikes and powerlines as well as along roads and trails. 1 All roads used by the public that are within or adjacent to Midpen property should be cleared of dead, dying, or highly flammable vegetation to the full extent of the road right-of-way. 1 The recent catastrophic wildfires in California have highlighted the hazard that exists in the wildland-urban interface. 6 Another large fire in the Bay Area would be devastating. 3 Concerned that Midpen has not made fire resiliency a large enough priority and should dedicate more resources and funding. 4 Accumulation of fuel in Thornewood has been ignored. 4 Large amounts of downed wood and brush has accumulated near trails. 2 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-11 Portola Valley has a high fire danger, with presence of aggressive fuels like coyote bush and dead oaks that need to be cleared from Windy Hill. 1 Residents near Portola Valley are doing all they can on individual properties to mitigate fire risk. 2 Significant fire event is highly likely near Portola Valley and Thornewood and risk is higher than in other OSPs. 6 Will a fuelbreak be completed between Portola Valley Ranch and Hawthorns preserve? 1 TOTAL 76 Alternatives Alternative is mowing when weed seeds are still green, and weeds will be replaced by dormant native seeds in the soil.* 1 How are alternatives determined? 1 Scope of project and alternatives should be expanded to focus on preserving and enhancing the character of Midpen’s lands, such as through increasing carbon sequestration and maintaining soil moisture, biodiversity, and habitat. 3 Requests evaluation of “Craig Dremann’s Meadow-Whisperer Method” alternative. 2 Evaluate “Craig Dremann’s Mowing that Unearths Dormant Native Seed" alternative method. 3 Evaluate the impact of no activity/no project. 2 Add alternative wildfire vulnerability reduction options. 1 Alternatives to vegetation removal and ways of reducing the demand and scope of vegetation removal should be evaluated in the EIR. 1 Avoid or minimize removal of eucalyptus to minimize effects on species that use eucalyptus. 1 Currently, Midpen has zero studies that can be used to evaluate alternatives that reduce fire fuels in the grasslands. 1 Midpen should conduct the proper studies for each alternative method to achieve the goal of measured pounds-per-acre fire-fuel reduction in the native grasslands and wildflower fields of the preserves. 1 Include an analysis of the different methods, along with reduction of fire fuel, which produce the least damage to the native wildflower and native grass resources. 1 TOTAL 18 Air Quality How will air quality be evaluated and what equipment will be used? 1 Why will past data be used for the baseline for air quality instead of current data at the time of the NOP? 1 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-12 Suggested studying air quality impacts in relation to the current health pandemic and the impact of COVID-19 as a way to set a higher standard for air quality. 1 TOTAL 3 Biological Resources Potentially significant impacts to biological resources may be associated with the Project if fully protected, threatened or endangered, candidate, and other special-status species that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur in or near the Program area may be impacted. 1 Include list of species that are known to occur or have potential to occur in project site in the EIR. 1 Include project baseline species habitats in Draft EIR. 1 Recommended mitigation measures for special-status wildlife, special-status plant species, nesting birds, state fully-protected species, bats, Marbled Murrelet California Red-legged frog, Western pond turtle. 1 Recommend the Draft EIR address habitat fragmentation and potential impacts to habitat connectivity from significant vegetation clearing and creation of edge effects. 1 Provide a summary of permitting and regulatory requirements related to biological resources. 2 Actions need to be weighed carefully to protect endangered and other wild species in Program areas. 1 Eucalyptus trees and other non-native species (French broom) need to be addressed aggressively. 1 Live oaks on Windy Hill have been declining over the past winter months and now are dead and quite a lot of Douglas fir is declining as well; this vegetation should be removed to reduce fire risk. 1 Concern that coyote bush is covering at least half the open meadows, which used to be more diverse, and should be removed under the Program to reduce invasive species. 1 Expand on the benefits and potential harmful impacts of prescribed burns to existing ecosystems, habitats and species. 2 Assess harm to olive-sided flycatchers nesting habitats from Program activities. 1 The Draft EIR should specify the methods and protocols for rare plant surveys in areas identified for vegetation treatment and removal. 1 Draft EIR should clearly identify measures to control invasive species encroachment during and following project activities. 1 Minimizing native vegetation removal should be considered to help limit the spread of damaging invasive plants. 1 Any successful grassland management project in Central California should be producing a 20- 25% increase in native plant cover each year, until you achieve between 90-98% native cover within 4-5 years. And when you get to that performance standard of 90-98% native cover, you essential have very close to zero fire-fuel. 1 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-13 Plowing fire breaks is ineffective – it drives native seeds in soil too deep, so they can never sprout, producing permanent weed-covered areas. 1 Fire or prescribed burns are not beneficial because weeds can take advantage faster than the natives can, like occurred with the five prescribed fires at Russian Ridge. 1 Fires pyrolizes surface organic matter and nutrients, lowering levels below native seedling survival.* 1 Requested before-and-after vegetation transects data to show the success of prescribed burn, grazing, and no project alternative on native species growth. 1 Burn at Russian Ridge in July 2007 illegally destroyed 2 million native plants and the burn created empty spots where 3 million weeds moved in to fill. Native grasslands in Russian Ridge are recovering on their own after burn in 2007. 1 TOTAL 23 Cultural Resources Summary of SB 18 and AB 52 tribal consultation requirements. 1 Recommend contacting the California Historical Research Information System Center for archaeological records search and contacting the Native American Heritage Commission for a Sacred Lands File search for adequate cultural resources analysis. 1 How can the impact on cultural resources be determined if staff does know what resources are present, including currently undiscovered cultural resources? 1 TOTAL 3 Geology and Soils The EIR must address how fire management can increase landslides, especially in the rainy Santa Cruz mountains or similar areas, because vegetation helps stabilize slopes and most of Midpen’s preserves are located in areas susceptible to significant rain events and earthquakes. 2 How would increased landslide risk be mitigated? 1 TOTAL 3 Attachment 2 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 3-14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fuel reduction can promote or inhibit carbon sequestration. Increasing the number of large trees increases carbon sequestration, whereas removal of too much competition can result in less diversity and no significant increase in size of trees. 1 TOTAL 1 Traffic Include the need to ensure safe passage during a wildfire for all vehicles that pass through or adjacent to Midpen properties. 1 TOTAL 1 Cumulative Program will enhance the fire resiliency work San Jose Water is planning for its own properties. 1 TOTAL 1 CEQA Process Online comment form not functioning, extend the public comment period.* 1 Request that the District clearly identify the manner in which project-level activities tiering off the program-level Draft EIR will be reviewed and noticed, so that the public and interested organizations will have opportunities to review and comment on the specific future activities occurring under the program. 1 Request investigation of how long the comment form was not available to the public.* 1 TOTAL 3 Non-Project Related Midpen should take proactive steps to ensure that PG&E's equipment on their property is safe since antiquated PG&E equipment has caused many of the more serious fires.* 1 Requests the trees along the road in front of the Windy Hill parking lot meadow be removed so people can feel the open space meadow as a foreground experience. 1 Make fencing along Alpine Road near Hawthorns property more transparent and wildlife friendly. 1 TOTAL 3 Attachment 2 4 FUTURE STEPS IN THE CEQA AND DECISION PROCESS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 4-1 4 Future Steps in the CEQA and Decision Process 4.1 CEQA Process After Scoping Scoping is the first step of the Program EIR process. This section describes the steps of the CEQA process that will occur following the conclusion of the Program EIR public review period, summarized in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Steps in the CEQA Process Item Description Approximate Date Completed Events/Documents NOP Notice to inform agencies and the public of the Midpen’s intent to prepare a Program EIR for the Program April 27, 2020 NOP Public Review Period Opportunity for agencies and the public to submit comments to Midpen on the scope of the Program EIR April 27 to June 18, 2020a Scoping Meeting Meeting to provide agencies and the public information about Midpen’s review process, the Program, and to hear and accept comments on the scope of the Program EIR May 13, 2020 Scoping Report Report that describes the scoping process; includes public comment opportunities, as well as who commented, and a summary of comments received during scoping July 2020 Upcoming Events/Documents Draft Program EIR Document that describes the Program, Program need, alternatives, impacts and mitigation measures, and other CEQA topics Fall 2020 Draft Program EIR Public Review Period Opportunity for agencies and the public to submit comments to Midpen on the content of the Draft Program EIR 45 days, beginning the day of Draft Program EIR release, in Winter 2020 Draft Program EIR Public Meeting Meeting to provide agencies and the public information about the content of the Draft Program EIR and to hear and accept comments on the content of the Draft Program EIR During the 45- day Draft Program EIR public review period, in Winter 2020 Final Program EIR and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan (MMRP) Public comments on the Draft Program EIR, responses to comments, and any changes to the Draft Program EIR Spring 2021 Attachment 2 4 FUTURE STEPS IN THE CEQA AND DECISION PROCESS Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● Scoping Summary Report ● July 2020 4-2 Item Description Approximate Date Certification of Final Program EIR and Board Decision and approval of the Program Midpen’s Board of Directors will decide on whether or not to certify the Program EIR and MMRP as being prepared pursuant to CEQA and issue a Notice of Decision (NOD). If certified by the Board, a 30-day appeal period is triggered. Upon certification of the EIR, the Board will also consider approval of the Program. Spring 2021 Note: a On May 11, 2020, Midpen staff learned that one of two web links to the comment form did not work. During the May 13th public scoping meeting with the Board, a request for a time extension was expressed. Midpen therefore extended the public comment period to Thursday June 18, 2020 at 5:00 pm. 4.2 Board of Directors Decision Process The Program EIR is an informational document and does not include a decision on whether to approve the Program. Midpen’s Board of Directors will decide whether to proceed with approval of the Program or an alternative to the Program after considering the findings of the EIR, public comments received and certification of the Final Program EIR at a future public meeting currently anticipated in the spring of 2020. This decision will be informed by the disclosure of environmental impacts provided in the Final Program EIR. Attachment 2 From:Jennifer Woodworth Subject:Board Questions Re: 7/22/20 Agenda Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:56:10 PM Attachments:Summit - 66992 - Cowan.pdf Summit - 66991 - Schenk.pdf RussianRidge2014PilotVegDataSummaryByCreekside.pdf Good afternoon all, Below in blue please find the responses to questions submitted for tonight’s agenda items. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Jen Director Cyr Claim 2204: $ 3600 for uniform items for one or two people? This charge is from Summit Uniforms for uniform items, safety gear and uniform boots for the academy for two new hire rangers who were hired last month and will attend the ranger academy in August. Per the MOU with the FEA newly hired employees in the bargaining unit shall receive their initial regular uniform items from the District at no cost to the employee. And these invoices are not everything. For perspective the full cost of provided uniform items and safety equipment provided to each new hire ranger can be from $2,500 - $3,000 depending on what equipment can be reissued or is needed to be purchased. This would include fire boots, body armor, baton, Stetson hats (1 felt and 1 straw) and badges. Attached are the two individual invoices. Claims 2185 and 2203: 11K in April and $5K in May for the science advisory panel? The payment to SFEI on the Claims Report covers 3 months of invoices (February, March and April) which we were holding while we completed negotiations on scope changes to the Science Panel contract. We were able to successfully negotiate changes that addressed the Board's modifications to the topics selected for the panel. Work completed during that period of time involved beginning background research on several of the topics and overhead administrative costs for the refining of the scope. There is an additional paid invoice for work in May (primarily background research) for $3,446.14, and an open invoice for June, $3,269.91. Claim 81253: What is a tax compensatory fee? When Midpen annexed the San Mateo Coast, Midpen entered into agreements with La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District and San Mateo County Fire to pay service fees to compensate for property taxes lost when Midpen cancels taxes on properties on the coast within the tax jurisdiction of the school district and County Fire. Similar to property tax payments, Midpen pays service fees twice a year in July and January to these two agencies, which increase 2% annually. Director Kishimoto item 4 - staff response says: Since that time, we have collected additional data via a contract with Creekside Center for Earth Observation (https://creeksidescience.com/). This report is attached. I went to the link, but didn’t see the attachment? Can you send it or a more specific link? The link provided background information on Creekside Center for Earth Observation and their qualifications. The original report was attached to the response email to Craig Dremann to fulfill the Public Records Act. The report has been attached to this email for your review. Item 9 - mountain lion Will DNA data be collected as part of this? Yes. DNA samples are used to determine relatedness of individuals and variation in the population for a host of questions ranging from parent offspring relationships to the genetic connectivity of the population with neighboring populations. Director Kersteen-Tucker Claim 81265: Looking at the Claims Report and wondering if you can shed some light on the check to Bay Area Older Adults, Inc for $2500 for a hike in Long Ridge OSP on 10/23/19. We recently made the payment to Bay Area Older adults since they had not yet been paid for an October 2019 hike that they organized for the District. Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, CPMC District Clerk | Assistant to the General Manager jwoodworth@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 E-mail correspondence with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.